Quote:
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 17 2002, 09:45 AM
Lott was 7 years old when Thurmond ran for President. Granted, that he was at one time (like most Dems) involved in some racist activities; but he changed parties and pholisophies long ago. His remarks were far less offensive that Sen. Byrd's remarks about 'white n-words'. In fact, the Black Communists (Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Watters, et al) are simply parsing words to create a furor which they hope will drive Lott out of the Senate, thereby changing the balance of power without an election. Show me the words in what he said that say he supports segregation (a concept which seems to be ok as long as it is people like Jackson espousing it).
Bush's dad had nothing to do with it. He is constantly being brought up, though, by the Left. I just think that it is time to hold the Dems' feet to the same fire. Remember, if not for the Republicans, there would have been no CRA '64...
|
Okay ... let's do this fair and square. We'll determine's who's daddy is relevant by awarding one point for every person working for the son today who used to work for the Daddy. Just to be fair, there will be no "negative numbers" assigned for the dead folks you mention. Why, you do it that way and Bush really will have a landslide under his belt!
Leaving aside the delusional (Communists like ...) and the blatantly false (Jackson et al. espousing segregation), your post is typical Bullshit (pun intended). Lott said, in effect, that if Thurmon had been elected in 48 we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Now, Strom did NOT run on a platform based on fiscal responsibility in government. He did NOT run on a platform based on a stronger military, or staunch anti-communism, or on anything other THAN A PLATFORM DESIGNED TO PERPETUATE AMERICAN APARTHIED. So when he said "we wouldn't have all these problems today" if Thurmon had been elected in 48, what in the hell COULD he have been talking about?
Yes, Torone, LBJ got Republican support from the likes of Dirksen and Percy for Civil Rights Legislation in 64, and later. There was a left and a right in both parties back then; both parties were far more diverse than they are today. LBJ had to hand out a LOT of pork to get Dirksen (Republican Majority Leader) to sign on ... yet Dirksen wasn't able to get all the members of his party (i.e., Goldwater and the more conservative wing) to support the legislation. The battles over Civil Rights in the 60s were far more idealogical (left vs right) and regional (Northeast, Northern Midwest and West vs South, the border states and the rest of the midwest) than they were party oriented. It wasn't the Good Republicans/Bad Democrats kind of issue that you seem to want to paint it as.
Torone, Lott made a statement that offended many, many people ... by no means all of them Black people. Your attempts to describe the ensuing controversy as some kind of Black Communist conspiracy is pathetic.