D’Oh!!
:smack:
Grendel:
Good link. It seems pretty fair. If that article’s correct, it’s a shame he never made a public apology.
I found this, though.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/1202/forum_strom.html
Of particular interest is the one written by Mr. McGriff about halfway down and Mary Ann Elsey.
I also like the one from Brent Allen.
As long as I can go to that website, Democratic denouncements of Republicans are nothing more than hypocrisy.
What forum are we in again?
:rolleyes:
I guess you didn’t read Sparticus’ posts.
It’s not that I disagree with him or his ideas. It’s that he clearly demonstrated that he is a liar and a bigot.
Identifying his lies bigotry and calling him on them is fair game. It’s particularly fair game in this thead, as it’s the main issue.
Because we don’t buy it. He “missed the opportunity”? Now, how did that happen? Are we to believe that the BJU speech was a spur of the moment, unplanned, extemporaneous thing? Later, he snapped his fingers and said “Oh, fudge! I missed the opporutinity to speak out on my real feelings! Drat!”
Nonsense. Every move was planned, weighed and measured. The gesture of the speech was planned precisely. And it is entirely consistent with a “Southern strategy” of implied, but deniable, sympathy with racism.
Would you have us believe that when GeeDubya mounted the podium, he didn’t know who he was speaking to? He didn’t know the BJU has a history and reputation as a symbol of racism and bigotry? With all those staffers, all those party hacks, all those pundits, not one of them, not one knew the sordid history of BJU.
Rot, sir. Utter rot.
Byrd is, of course, a worthless piece of shit. I’m not a Dem, but t sure looks to me like Byrd is a marginal figure in his party while Lott and Ashcroft have been put in positions of authority by theirs.
elucidator:
You shouldn’t quote “missed the opportunity” that’s my paraphrase not his actual words.
But, of course you don’t buy it. I doubt there is anything he could do or say to redeem himself. Doubtless if he threw himself on a sword, you’d claim he was being histrionic for media value.
You think what you think and you’ll interpret anything and everything according to your preconceived notions.
That’s the problem.
grendel:
Lott looks pretty marginalized to me.
Ashcroft seems to have two potential incidents against him. One was a blocking of school desegregation in St. Louis. I don’t know the specifics of it, so I can’t judge it. The second seems to be that he granted an interview to “Southern Partisan” magazine. He claims he wasn’t aware of it’s connotations.
Similarly, the governor of Mississippi (IIRC) proclaimed “Spirit of America” day, at the behest of this guy named Barrett, not realizing that “Spirit of America” day basically had an agenda of White Supremacy.
People do make mistakes, and Ashcroft has publically spoken out against racism and denounced it, and again at his confirmation hearings.
So personal attacks in GD are then sanctioned if, in your opinion, they’re justified?
Well, that certainly settles that! How does one counter such a carefully wrought argument?
You’ve put your finger precisely on the central weakness of my argument, the core fallacy that renders all possible rebuttal moot and impotent.
“elucidator is a poopy head!”
Such rhetorical verve, such mastery of the syllogistic process! This thread will no doubt go down in SDMB history as your finest hour, the point at which you reached your own personal acme of argumentative skill.
I felt that Sparticus’ arguments demonstrated the lies and bigotry I was arguing against. I followed guidelines that I’d seen Gaudere issue in the Collounsbury thread.
Thanks for the discussion and interest, but I have no further interest in discussing your interpretation of my interpretation of the rules of this forum. If you have a problem stop pretending at an athority you do not have, and do what you should have done in the first place. Talk to a moderator.
Byrd repudiated the Klan ages ago, and has a voting record to prove it. While he is an SOB on many other issues, it is impossible to justify 50 years on that he is still a racist. This is an argument that racist Republicans trot out to try to distract from their current crypto racism and cryto race baiting, which is what this thread amounts to.
Jackmanjii, I would tend to agree that substantive issues like economics and jobs, etc. need to be focused on by Democrats. But these are also fundamentally race issues, as the consequences of Bushonomics fall hardest on the poor, which are disproprotionately ethnic minorities.
Ashcroft’s long pandering to racial elements, and particularly his standard coded messages in his interview in the 1998 Southern Partisan magazine interview he did belie his statements of convenience against racism at the hearings for his confirmation. The NAACP http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/ashcroft01092001.shtml stronly opposed Ashcroft’s nomination for a reason. His long career of actions spoke much louder than his lies at the hearing.
Elucidator is quite correct in criticizing Bush’s “missed opportunity” statement as a lot of crap. He deliberately bypassed the opportunity to criticize BJU because it would have been counter-productive in alienating the people he was pandering to deliberately at that time. A real apology recitfys a mistake: he can offer to give a commencement address at BJU and condemn bigotry right then and there. He could call on BJU to change its policies. But he hasn’t. That is because he is lacking in sincerety about his apology.
elucidator:
There is no core to your argument. You’re just complaining. Bush apologized and said he was wrong. He’s still a bigot though. You don’t believe him. He castrated Lott. That doesn’t matter. He’s still a bigot, and so are Republicans.
You don’t appear to have a logic based stance, but rather a faith-based one. You can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t arrive at through reason.
Here’s an interesting link concerning Aschcroft. Rather harsh on Republicans but seems germaine to the issue of Ashcroft’s racism
Cite? No, really, I do want to know – when is vicious name-calling is acceptable? I do not recall seeing any such thing in the Collounsbury thread – the fine line seemed to be attacking an argument (e.g. ‘that is a lie and a bigoted statement’) vs attacking a person (e.g. ‘you are a liar and a bigot’).
I have.
**
You can look it up as easily as I. It was the one in the pit. “Liar” and “bigot” are not grautitous insults. They’re a defensible and accurate characterization of Sparticus’ actions, and to date they’ve been consistently allowed.
Again, if you don’t understand the rules, there’s a forum for that. If you have a problem with the action in the thread it’s best to stay out of it and contact a moderator rather than to attempt to intervene, perhaps in error, and appear to be pretending to an athority you don’t posess.
You’ve seen something you feel is over the line, and you’ve notified a moderator. Good job. Please stop hijacking the thread.
squeegee:
And am rather unimpressed with your attempt at censure, as you seem to have no problem with Minty’s having called me a liar, nor Sparticus’ calling me a liar, a racist, and a bigot.
If I may.
An interjection on states’ rights:
From a biographical page on Civil War generals, summarizing the life of General George Thomas, born in Virginia, but fought on the Union side, and, to quote the site, “the only commander under whom colored troops played a key role in a decisive Union victory.”
States’ rights has a 150 year history behind it as a charged phrase.
From aotc.net - aotc Resources and Information.
Additionally, may I ask that everyone maintain their 
? (I know, I got a bit heated too. But it is kind of getting out of hand, IMO.)
You admitted you were knowingly posting false assertions of fact. Given that, it’s rather difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you were lying. When it fits the facts, liar is a perfectly appropriate term to use.
On the other hand, your accusation of bigotry and Sparticus’ accusation of racism are both bullshit and beneath the dignity of the forum. But then again, IANAM, so live with your own consciences on that.