A good example of why southern conservatives are not trusted.

apple0154 said:
Perhaps this will shed a little light on things.

"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked
criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if
then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in
1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration
for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott
said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for
president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the
country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems
over all these years, either."

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee
of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign
against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights
legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington
and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes,
our schools, our churches."
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200212/msg00039.html
Click to expand...

So? How does a casual comment made during the guy's birthday bash show that he supported racist Democrat policies?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by apple0154
Perhaps this will shed a little light on things.

"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked
criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if
then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in
1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration
for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott
said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for
president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the
country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems
over all these years, either."

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee
of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign
against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights
legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington
and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes,
our schools, our churches."
http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00039.html
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
So? How does a casual comment made during the guy's birthday bash show that he supported racist Democrat policies?
Click to expand...

Actually it was a racist Dixiecrat, because Democrat Truman was the man who spearheaded the policy that made Thurman spew the racist bilge quoted above.

You're reading comprehension is deplorable. Combined with your bigoted revisionist tendency of history makes you a disgusting human being.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually it was a racist Dixiecrat, because Democrat Truman was the man who spearheaded the policy that made Thurman spew the racist bilge quoted above.

You're reading comprehension is deplorable. Combined with your bigoted revisionist tendency of history makes you a disgusting human being.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that's a stinging rebuke coming from you. How will he ever live with himself?
 
Southern Man said:
So? How does a casual comment made during the guy's birthday bash show that he supported racist Democrat policies?
Click to expand...

Casual would be something like "He was a great guy". Not "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

What is the last sentence doing in there? The only rational explanation would be Lott believed in Thurmond's policies. The next question one has to ask is, "What were Thurmond's policies?" or "Where did his policies greatly differ from the other candidates?" and I think we all know the answer. Unless Thurmond had a policy other than segregation that would have made a major difference in "all these problems over all these years" what is one to take away from that comment?
 
apple0154 said:
Panels do that all the time. Even taxi drivers are governed by how much they can charge. Ever get in a taxi and the meter starts at $50.00?

And wasn't it your pal Reagan who had a little chat with the air traffic controllers?

Again, you make it sound like it's all new, different, never done before. A big mystery how to solve a simple problem that countries all over the world have solved.
Click to expand...

But this is about what you should be earning.
Don't you want others to decide what you should be paid??
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually it was a racist Dixiecrat, because Democrat Truman was the man who spearheaded the policy that made Thurman spew the racist bilge quoted above.

You're reading comprehension is deplorable. Combined with your bigoted revisionist tendency of history makes you a disgusting human being.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
Ouch, that's a stinging rebuke coming from you. How will he ever live with himself?
Click to expand...

:gives:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the quote was "I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."...

maineman's claim was that thereby Lott was indicating his support for banning interracial marriage.....there may be some liberals stupid enough to believe maineman's claim.....liberals are notoriously stupid.......
Click to expand...

If someone loudly announces to the world, more than half a century later, that they are PROUD of their vote for an avowed racist, that certainly would cause reasonable people to deduce that they were supportive of that candidate's racist policies... and the fact that they were STILL PROUD would further indicate that their support had not dimmed.
 
apple0154 said:
Casual would be something like "He was a great guy". Not "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

What is the last sentence doing in there? The only rational explanation would be Lott believed in Thurmond's policies. The next question one has to ask is, "What were Thurmond's policies?" or "Where did his policies greatly differ from the other candidates?" and I think we all know the answer. Unless Thurmond had a policy other than segregation that would have made a major difference in "all these problems over all these years" what is one to take away from that comment?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Thurmond didn't have any policies other that the one that you are alluding to?
 
Southern Man said:
Are you suggesting that Thurmond didn't have any policies other that the one that you are alluding to?
Click to expand...

of course not.... but if you say you are PROUD of your vote for a man, you really do take ownership for his platform that you PROUDLY supported with that vote.
 
maineman said:
of course not.... but if you say you are PROUD of your vote for a man, you really do take ownership for his platform that you PROUDLY supported with that vote.
Click to expand...
Oh really? I wasn't aware that one had to be fully dedicated to all policies of a candidate to proudly vote for them.

Now, since you are a self-proclaimed "Yellow Democrat" and would therefore 'vote for a yellow dog registered as a Democrat rather than a Republican", you therefore are proud of all the policies of all the Democrats that you have voted for. :)
 
maineman said:
If someone loudly announces to the world, more than half a century later, that they are PROUD of their vote for an avowed racist, that certainly would cause reasonable people to deduce that they were supportive of that candidate's racist policies... and the fact that they were STILL PROUD would further indicate that their support had not dimmed.
Click to expand...
the presumption is that he is proud of him BECAUSE he's a racist.....I suppose the same presumption is valid then when a member of the black caucus voices support for Byrd....they support him BECAUSE he's a former KKK Grand Dragon?......as I said, your argument is fodder for stupid liberals.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the presumption is that he is proud of him BECAUSE he's a racist.....I suppose the same presumption is valid then when a member of the black caucus voices support for Byrd....they support him BECAUSE he's a former KKK Grand Dragon?......as I said, your argument is fodder for stupid liberals.....
Click to expand...

they are proud of their vote for him WHEN he was a racist and when racism was THE defining issue that caused him to run as a third party candidate.

If a German citizen today says that he is proud of the fact that he voted for Hitler and supported his ascension to power and that Germany was a better place today because if him, it is fair to presume that they supported Hitler's policy with respect to Jews.
 
Southern Man said:
Oh really? I wasn't aware that one had to be fully dedicated to all policies of a candidate to proudly vote for them.

Now, since you are a self-proclaimed "Yellow Democrat" and would therefore 'vote for a yellow dog registered as a Democrat rather than a Republican", you therefore are proud of all the policies of all the Democrats that you have voted for. :)
Click to expand...

I have held my nose and voted for democrats on more than one occasion in my life. However, when I look back on those democrats that I PROUDLY voted for, I would say that in every instance, their primary core beliefs and platform planks were ones that I was fully dedicated to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top