Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment

The sad part about what Senator Reid said, is true! The democracts are rallying around Reid, unlike the republicans when Trent Lott step on his dick, with that comment about "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," Just think about it, if this country elected Thurmond in 1948, Obama would not have been born, and if he was born he would be shining shoes somewhere! No one came to Trent's defense either!
 
signalmankenneth said:
The sad part about what Senator Reid said, is true! The democracts are rallying around Reid, unlike the republicans when Trent Lott step on his dick, with that comment about "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," Just think about it, if this country elected Thurmond in 1948, Obama would not have been born, and if he was born he would be shining shoes somewhere! No one came to Trent's defense either!
Click to expand...

Nah, it wouldn't have effected Obama being born, American policies wouldn't have been enforced in Kenya!

Again, I will point out, Strom renounced his support of segregationist policy a long time ago, and was popularly re-elected for decades afterward. To imply that some innocent comment from Trent Lott at a birthday celebration, has anything to do with Thurmond's ancient segregationist position, is without merit. It just simply wasn't about that, as much as you wanted to make it out to be. That said, Lott repeatedly apologized for what he said, and admitted it could be taken the wrong way.

It might also be a good time to point out, Trent Lott is the state senator for the state with the highest per capita number of blacks in the US. He generally gets about 70% of the black vote in Mississippi. Does this sound like someone who would advocate segregationist policies?
 
signalmankenneth said:
The sad part about what Senator Reid said, is true! The democracts are rallying around Reid, unlike the republicans when Trent Lott step on his dick, with that comment about "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," Just think about it, if this country elected Thurmond in 1948, Obama would not have been born, and if he was born he would be shining shoes somewhere! No one came to Trent's defense either!
Click to expand...

all liberals should be shining shoes....it's all they're qualified to do.....
 
Dixie said:
Nah, it wouldn't have effected Obama being born, American policies wouldn't have been enforced in Kenya!

Again, I will point out, Strom renounced his support of segregationist policy a long time ago, and was popularly re-elected for decades afterward. To imply that some innocent comment from Trent Lott at a birthday celebration, has anything to do with Thurmond's ancient segregationist position, is without merit. It just simply wasn't about that, as much as you wanted to make it out to be. That said, Lott repeatedly apologized for what he said, and admitted it could be taken the wrong way.

It might also be a good time to point out, Trent Lott is the state senator for the state with the highest per capita number of blacks in the US. He generally gets about 70% of the black vote in Mississippi. Does this sound like someone who would advocate segregationist policies?
Click to expand...

He might not advocate them now, in the context of an actual campaign, but in the informal setting & circumstances under which he made that quote - I don't think there is much question about what he was actually saying...
 
Onceler said:
He might not advocate them now, in the context of an actual campaign, but in the informal setting & circumstances under which he made that quote - I don't think there is much question about what he was actually saying...
Click to expand...

No, there isn't much question about what he was talking about or what he meant, because segregation hasn't been a platform issue for Strom or anyone in over 50 years! There isn't much question that Trent Lott never mentioned Strom's one-time segregationist position, nor did he mention Strom's recanting his position and going on to be re-elected by the voters of his state (including black people) for years and years to come. There wasn't any need in Trent mentioning it, because it was never a part of the dialogue or what he was articulating, and there was no need in saying it. There is no question about that!

There is absolutely no question that Trent Lott went on record after the comment, to reiterate his intended meaning, and clarify his remarks, and it's no question he never once indicated it had anything to do with Strom Thurmond's one-time position regarding segregation. There is no question, Lott repeatedly indicated his comments were referring to Strom's long-standing conservative principles of limited government, and not an obscure populist social position widely espoused by many politicians in 1948, including a huge chunk of the Democrat party. There is no question Trent wasn't talking about segregation and you are a hypocrite idiot who insists that he was.
 
Dixie said:
Seems I recall during the campaign, a parody song entitled "Barack the Magic Negro" was met with extreme outrage from the left, it was a very big deal, even though it was satirical. When I maintained you were blowing THAT out of proportion, I was called a racist. When I suggested that usage of the word "negro" was not derogatory, you insisted the word WAS derogatory in ANY connotation, including the 'United Negro College Fund' and when referring to a genre of music known as "negro spirituals." Those examples didn't matter because the usage was somehow 'accepted' by black people, which made it okay.
Click to expand...

I'm not from the left or the right. I think that was tasteless also.Unfortunately racism is accepted in comedy....I think that was mocking Obama's heritage.

What Reid did was far from it. This is how he was brought up to refer to African Americans. Negros was politically correct in his time. I never insisted Negro as a derogatory remark. It's apparently no longer politically correct, though it isn't derogatory.
 
"there isn't much question about what he was talking about or what he meant, because segregation hasn't been a platform issue for Strom or anyone in over 50 years! "

Dixie - in his comment, he was talking specifically about Strom's run as a Dixiecrat, and how if he won, we wouldn't have all of those pesky (fill in the blank w/ your favorite African American slang word) problems that we have now.

He was talking about FIFTY YEARS AGO. He wasn't saying Strom's a swell guy, and what a life he's had; he was saying he was proud of his vote, and that Strom should have won.

What spin.
 
Onceler said:
"there isn't much question about what he was talking about or what he meant, because segregation hasn't been a platform issue for Strom or anyone in over 50 years! "

Dixie - in his comment, he was talking specifically about Strom's run as a Dixiecrat, and how if he won, we wouldn't have all of those pesky (fill in the blank w/ your favorite African American slang word) problems that we have now.

He was talking about FIFTY YEARS AGO. He wasn't saying Strom's a swell guy, and what a life he's had; he was saying he was proud of his vote, and that Strom should have won.

What spin.
Click to expand...

so strom only ran on that one platform?

your fill in the blank is nothing but supposition as lott never actually said those words....would you agree that is true?
 
Yurt said:
so strom only ran on that one platform?

your fill in the blank is nothing but supposition as lott never actually said those words....would you agree that is true?
Click to expand...

Segregation was the Dixiecrats reason for existing. It was the reason Strom bolted his own party at that time to join & run. Their motto was "Segregation Forever!"

In related news, the sum of two and two turns out to be four...
 
Onceler said:
Segregation was the Dixiecrats reason for existing. It was the reason Strom bolted his own party at that time to join & run. Their motto was "Segregation Forever!"

In related news, the sum of two and two turns out to be four...
Click to expand...

you forgot the last part of the post, me thinks because you know i'm right and as usual run instead of answer....

you also did not answer my question....was the the only platform he ran on? i'm trying to figure this stuff out onceler....why can't you answer simple questions?
 
Yurt said:
you forgot the last part of the post, me thinks because you know i'm right and as usual run instead of answer....

you also did not answer my question....was the the only platform he ran on? i'm trying to figure this stuff out onceler....why can't you answer simple questions?
Click to expand...

No need to get testy. You should probably go easy on the caffeine for awhile, judging by your recent posts.

No, it wasn't the only part of their platform. No, Lott didn't say anything specifically about African Americans in his quote about "problems."
 
Onceler said:
No need to get testy. You should probably go easy on the caffeine for awhile, judging by your recent posts.

No, it wasn't the only part of their platform. No, Lott didn't say anything specifically about African Americans in his quote about "problems."
Click to expand...

see...thats not so hard is it onceler...

i'm proud of you, this is a small step for you

:)

so, what makes you think lott was referring only to that one part of his platform?

and you know i am not testy, i just gave you uber powerful rep points because i like you
 
Yurt said:
see...thats not so hard is it onceler...

i'm proud of you, this is a small step for you

:)

so, what makes you think lott was referring only to that one part of his platform?

and you know i am not testy, i just gave you uber powerful rep points because i like you
Click to expand...

Eh - it's pretty clear as day; classic southern-speak. Segregation was really the only differentiation between the Dixiecrats & the traditional conservative platform. The reason Dixiecrats formed in the 1st place was 100% segregation, but they had all of the other interests in common, and to be a viable national party, they obviously had to have other aspects to their platform.

But it was their raison d'etre. There would be no reason to say we wouldn't have "problems" if the Dixiecrats won, if that comment wasn't related to segregation.

I've gotta say - I have no problem saying Reid embarassed himself, made a racist statement & should step down. But it is very hilarious to watch you dart all over the board today in a caffeine-induced fury, calling libs for their "hypocrisy" in denouncing Lott but not Reid, and here you are, trying to find some reason, some lame excuse for Lott.

Nice!
:clink:
 
Onceler said:
Eh - it's pretty clear as day; classic southern-speak. Segregation was really the only differentiation between the Dixiecrats & the traditional conservative platform. The reason Dixiecrats formed in the 1st place was 100% segregation, but they had all of the other interests in common, and to be a viable national party, they obviously had to have other aspects to their platform.

But it was their raison d'etre. There would be no reason to say we wouldn't have "problems" if the Dixiecrats won, if that comment wasn't related to segregation.

I've gotta say - I have no problem saying Reid embarassed himself, made a racist statement & should step down. But it is very hilarious to watch you dart all over the board today in a caffeine-induced fury, calling libs for their "hypocrisy" in denouncing Lott but not Reid, and here you are, trying to find some reason, some lame excuse for Lott.

Nice!
:clink:
Click to expand...

back to the lies....

i have not defended nor denounced lott as i am not familiar with his comments in full context. hence my questions, which you again (being hypersensitive) take as "anger".....

i guess you still haven't learned how to deal with people asking you questions. i hope you're not a teacher. hopefully you will learn to manage this hypersensitivity - anger management issue you have. might i suggest:

0470037156.jpg
 
Onceler said:
"there isn't much question about what he was talking about or what he meant, because segregation hasn't been a platform issue for Strom or anyone in over 50 years! "

Dixie - in his comment, he was talking specifically about Strom's run as a Dixiecrat, and how if he won, we wouldn't have all of those pesky (fill in the blank w/ your favorite African American slang word) problems that we have now.

He was talking about FIFTY YEARS AGO. He wasn't saying Strom's a swell guy, and what a life he's had; he was saying he was proud of his vote, and that Strom should have won.

What spin.
Click to expand...

You are inferring your own meaning and intent into what he said, directly in contradiction of what the man claims he meant, and what is reasonable for him to have meant. That doesn't bother you any? No one is doing that with Reid, his words stand on their own merit, we don't have to 'find intent' in what he said, it is pretty apparent what he meant.

Okay, since you want to continue making this debate about what Trent Lott said and not what Harry Reid said... let's take an OBJECTIVE look at Lott's comment. Not even the most devout segregationist of 1948 ever believed or thought that segregation would solve all the "pesky racial problems" in America... not a single one! Certainly, after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (45 years ago), no one believed segregation was an answer to any problem. Most rational sane people could realize, at the very least, there would have been millions of people protesting, riots, marches, violence, etc., in a segregated America, so where is this idea that we would have been "better off" had we adopted a segregationist policy in 1948? It doesn't even make logical sense that someone would think this in 1948, much less TODAY!

You have no basis in logic to conclude this is what Trent Lott was referring to! NONE! NADDA! It contradicts common sense and rationality to believe that is what Trent Lott meant! And IF Trent Lott DID mean that, he is the most insane and irrational person to ever serve in Congress, and THAT is quite a feat these days!

Given the fact that Trent Lott has repeatedly explained what he meant, and has profusely denied it had anything at all to do with segregationist policies, coupled with the fact that, living in MS, he probably has more blacks voting for him than the average politician, I have to conclude only a partisan idiot moron who wanted to FIND INTENT of racism, would interpret Trent Lott making a comment endorsing segregation.
 
Dixie said:
You are inferring your own meaning and intent into what he said, directly in contradiction of what the man claims he meant, and what is reasonable for him to have meant. That doesn't bother you any? No one is doing that with Reid, his words stand on their own merit, we don't have to 'find intent' in what he said, it is pretty apparent what he meant.

Okay, since you want to continue making this debate about what Trent Lott said and not what Harry Reid said... let's take an OBJECTIVE look at Lott's comment. Not even the most devout segregationist of 1948 ever believed or thought that segregation would solve all the "pesky racial problems" in America... not a single one! Certainly, after passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (45 years ago), no one believed segregation was an answer to any problem. Most rational sane people could realize, at the very least, there would have been millions of people protesting, riots, marches, violence, etc., in a segregated America, so where is this idea that we would have been "better off" had we adopted a segregationist policy in 1948? It doesn't even make logical sense that someone would think this in 1948, much less TODAY!

You have no basis in logic to conclude this is what Trent Lott was referring to! NONE! NADDA! It contradicts common sense and rationality to believe that is what Trent Lott meant! And IF Trent Lott DID mean that, he is the most insane and irrational person to ever serve in Congress, and THAT is quite a feat these days!

Given the fact that Trent Lott has repeatedly explained what he meant, and has profusely denied it had anything at all to do with segregationist policies, coupled with the fact that, living in MS, he probably has more blacks voting for him than the average politician, I have to conclude only a partisan idiot moron who wanted to FIND INTENT of racism, would interpret Trent Lott making a comment endorsing segregation.
Click to expand...

this makes no sense....so in 1948 no segregationist believed segregation would work because of the 1964 civil rights act
 
Yurt said:
this makes no sense....so in 1948 no segregationist believed segregation would work because of the 1964 civil rights act
Click to expand...

Not what I said. Segregation was not ever seen as some magic bullet that would solve all racial problems in America... If it had been, we would have certainly tried it! No one in 1948 thought this, and if anyone had such a baseless idea, they certainly didn't have it after 1964! The point is, I don't believe anyone has EVER thought segregation would make us "better off" as the lefties are claiming Lott meant, and they certainly haven't thought that way since passage of Civil Rights. This is an idea that is nearly a century old, and has been put to rest in our society for 45 years, but the liberals seem to think it is prevalent among current republicans holding public office... it's absurd!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top