Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment

Any praise for Byrd's time in office includes everything he did, supported, or believed in...same as thanking Strom for his service. Byrd was a suporter of the same philosophy as Thurmond...PERIOD!

And if Trent Lott had praised the ideas that Byrd USED to support then it would have been the same huh?

He said the country would have been better off if in 1948 Strom had been elected as the head of a party that had "segragation forever" as its rally cry.
 
Interesting perspective. Personally, I take any praise for Strom Thurmond to be distasteful but I suspect I'd be in the minority on that one. If Trent Lott got up on Strom's 100 birthday and praised him generally, I doubt you would have heard a single word about it, but praising Strom specifically for his run for presidency on a segregationist platform is an entirely different matter altogether.

When a Democrat praises Byrd for what he did 40 years ago you'd have a point. Until then . . .

The interesting thing is how well you libtards have diverted the conversation to Trent's past comments, instead of the current topic of Reid's. The bottom line is, you can't condemn Lott and give Reid a pass and not be a total and complete hypocrite. What you are essentially trying to say is, liberal democrats can get away with virtually anything racially offensive and republicans can't. In fact, if it is a republican, it specifically has to be made about race and racism, no other opinion or perspective matters.

You continue to try and conceal your hypocrisy by making this debate pertain to Trent Lott's comments, Strom's segregationist past, Dixiecrats, George Allen Conspiracy Allegations... whatever the hell you can come up with to avoid the stark contradiction to your 'principled' position!
 
How is what Reid said racist?

Besides the fact that lots of people say what Reid said without using the term negro dialect you don't see any inherent problems with saying an intelligent articulate black man is talking white?
 
The interesting thing is how well you libtards have diverted the conversation to Trent's past comments, instead of the current topic of Reid's. The bottom line is, you can't condemn Lott and give Reid a pass and not be a total and complete hypocrite. What you are essentially trying to say is, liberal democrats can get away with virtually anything racially offensive and republicans can't. In fact, if it is a republican, it specifically has to be made about race and racism, no other opinion or perspective matters.

You continue to try and conceal your hypocrisy by making this debate pertain to Trent Lott's comments, Strom's segregationist past, Dixiecrats, George Allen Conspiracy Allegations... whatever the hell you can come up with to avoid the stark contradiction to your 'principled' position!


First of all, if you review the thread I didn't bring up Trent Lott. I was merely responding to someone else that brought him up as though what Lott said and what Reid said were comparable when they quite plainly are not.

Second, how many times do I have to say that Reid is fair game for criticism before you accept it? How about once more: Reid is fair game for criticism.
 
The interesting thing is how well you libtards have diverted the conversation to Trent's past comments, instead of the current topic of Reid's. The bottom line is, you can't condemn Lott and give Reid a pass and not be a total and complete hypocrite. What you are essentially trying to say is, liberal democrats can get away with virtually anything racially offensive and republicans can't. In fact, if it is a republican, it specifically has to be made about race and racism, no other opinion or perspective matters.

You continue to try and conceal your hypocrisy by making this debate pertain to Trent Lott's comments, Strom's segregationist past, Dixiecrats, George Allen Conspiracy Allegations... whatever the hell you can come up with to avoid the stark contradiction to your 'principled' position!

You are demented.

Reid was talking about it being a good thing that a black man can get elected and the other was talking about how it would have been good if a segregationists was elected.

The fact that you can not see they are different is a good indication of YOUR racism.
 
You are demented.

Reid was talking about it being a good thing that a black man can get elected and the other was talking about how it would have been good if a segregationists was elected.

The fact that you can not see they are different is a good indication of YOUR racism.

You interpret Reid saying Obama can become President because he doesn't sound or speak black as a good thing?
 
Besides the fact that lots of people say what Reid said without using the term negro dialect you don't see any inherent problems with saying an intelligent articulate black man is talking white?


The one time you should agree with George Fucking Will and you don't.
 
You interpret Reid saying Obama can become President because he doesn't sound or speak black as a good thing?


I agree with this take on what Reid said:

I'm late getting to this, but really, the key point about this...

A new book about the 2008 campaign quotes [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid as predicting that Mr. Obama could become the country's first black president because he was "light-skinned" and had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

...is that it's primarily an insult to white people. What Reid was saying, ultimately, was this: "There's a very, very narrow range of African-Americans who would be deemed acceptable to the majority-white American presidential electorate, and Barack Obama fits white voters' extremely restrictive criteria."

By comparison, blogger Patterico now argues that Reid's remark is comparable to a Bill Bennett pronouncement Reid once criticized as racist -- that

" ... you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

See the difference? Despite Bennett's attempt to seem repulsed by his own assertion, he's still insulting black people. Not the same as Reid's insult of whites at all.

And, of course, many right-wingers are comparing what Reid said to Trent Lott's assertion that America would have been better off if Strom Thurmond, running on a segregationist platform, had been elected president in 1948. Lott's remark was also an insult to black people -- unless you're arguing that he believed Thurmond's election in 1948 was intended to save white people from their own racist selves.

Reid said something harsh about my people. But I think his heart was in the right place, and I'm ready to accept his apology.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/01/as-white-person-ill-accept-harry-reids.html
 
You are demented.

Reid was talking about it being a good thing that a black man can get elected and the other was talking about how it would have been good if a segregationists was elected.

The fact that you can not see they are different is a good indication of YOUR racism.
Jeebus...

I can't tell you how many times I have seen the "what do you mean" thing played when somebody said they talk more "white" than others, or because he isn't as "black" as some. But when Reid pulls it out suddenly everybody is willing to say, "Yeah, that's cool, we should just let that kind of thing go because he votes for health care and doesn't do it publicly..."

Seriously. This isn't okay people, I don't even care where it is from.

It reminds me of the Boston Legal episode where Shatner's character gets sued for saying the dude applying didn't "sound black", while his character could never figure out why that might be offensive, please don't try to tell me that you cannot just because he is your Senator and in your party. It's just not okay.
 
Reid has admitted he should not have said it that way.

The Black community has accepted his appology.

Why did the black community not accept the Lott "explanation".

Maybe it has something to do with these two peoples records on black rights?
 
Reid has admitted he should not have said it that way.

The Black community has accepted his appology.

Why did the black community not accept the Lott "explanation".

Maybe it has something to do with these two peoples records on black rights?
For the same reason you do, political expediency.

One man tries to make an old man happy on his birthday and says some stuff that was insensitive, it wasn't okay.

Another man tries to give a complement to a black man saying he doesn't sound "negro" unless he wants to and is more white-looking than those scary black people and people try to come here to tell me it is okay. It isn't. Quit trying to make it okay to protect your political party.
 
Both Lott & Reid's explanations were bogus. There is a little 3rd grader in all of us when we get busted.

Reid should step down, immediately.
 
Interesting perspective. Personally, I take any praise for Strom Thurmond to be distasteful but I suspect I'd be in the minority on that one. If Trent Lott got up on Strom's 100 birthday and praised him generally, I doubt you would have heard a single word about it, but praising Strom specifically for his run for presidency on a segregationist platform is an entirely different matter altogether.

When a Democrat praises Byrd for what he did 40 years ago you'd have a point. Until then . . .

What a load of crap... He did NOT praise him for his run on a segregationist platform. THAT is what you hacks keep reading into his comment. Despite the fact that he explained EXACTLY what he meant. He was praising Strom in GENERAL and was giving him a pat on the back saying he would have made a good President.

Yes, the dixiecrats believed in segregation. But you are pretending that is ALL Strom stood for. He was a proponent of a strong military, a balanced budget, revamped welfare and was opposed to more New Deal policies. He later renounced the segregationist portion of his past.

Yet you want to continue to pretend that by stating he would have been a good President at the time he ran that MUST mean he was referring to the segregationist portion is simply absurd partisan hackery. Could Lott have been clearer with his original message... of course. Which is why he had to clarify.
 
Both Lott & Reid's explanations were bogus. There is a little 3rd grader in all of us when we get busted.

Reid should step down, immediately.
Yes. And when Lott made his remarks I was embarrassed how long he held on trying to take back the spoken word.

It isn't okay.
 
Back
Top