I’ll poll the niggers in my office this morning about the validity of this statement. I think one may be a fag as well. Hopefully I’ll have time to post this afternoon the results of the poll if I can keep from spending too much time pitting my realease from employment.
Hey, they’re just words, right?
Well, he managed to insult both whites and blacks at the same time, so it is either pan-racism or some sort of specialized brain damage. Maybe we can fund an institute for the study of Bizarre Self-Immolating Verbalism.
In Hurricane, WV, for instance.
I’m having trouble finding the cite, but I’ve seen an article pointing out that every state has the same requirement, lenient though it is. There was a SC ruling many years back that the US Constitution set those eligibility requirements for Senator, and the states could not restrict them further.
Is this Jeanne “Does somebody have Page 11?” Pirro we’re talking about? That’s the best the NY GOP can come up with, really? Hint, guys - if Giuliani were serious about returning to office, this is where he’d start. If he doesn’t think he can beat Clinton, then nobody else can, either.
I’d say the evidence is mounting up nicely now.
So, since you repeated my posts in your post, that would imply that you’re supporting it. Gotcha. I’ve never seen the results of ass-trepanning before today. Thanks for sharing the results here!
I’m going to bundle your crap here as you’re obviously panicking about all of this:
As I stated in the OP,
Newsmax didn’t give much more details that what was linked. Feel free to find out who the other folk were. As it sits, Clinton does have joint responsibility for throwing the party. Sorry, I guess you’ll have to learn that grown-ups aren’t perfect. Of course, it’s really fun to watch you flip, flail, fret about this as if I’m an accomplice to a right-wing conspiracy to discredit Clinton instead of just pitting a stupid event. I’m sure you’re going to accuse me of being part of the right-wing without knowing that I’ve voted straight ballot democrat in the last two elections.
But, whatever gets my white nigger Marley23 through the day, I guess. (See, I can use it without it being offensive too! :rolleyes: )
If “incredibly clueless” falls under “specialized brain damage,” I’m with you. Same thing if “senile” falls in that category.
It was a damn fool thing for Byrd to say. Near as I can tell, he’s aware of his own racist past and ashamed of his own racist past, and he tries to escape and repudiate it, but sometimes he slips back into nasty habits.
I don’t know that it’s fair to call it racist, but things can be cretinous without being racist.
Daniel
Speaking at the CCC = being a member of the Klan? Even if we accept that, Lott apologized and denounced their racist agenda.
If you’re going call everyone “racist” who doesn’t agree with you on certain legislation, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. There are principled reason to oppose a much legislation that is generally called “pro-civil rights”.
I’ve met rocks less dense than you are. I quoted your statements and commented that they’re stupid. You just repeated what the Pirro campaign was saying. Good luck figuring out the difference, I know how mysterious it is.
I didn’t realize I was the one who started this thread.
What makes you think I give a shit how you vote?
You’ve managed to dodge both what I said and what I asked while responding to nothing. His statement was dumb - I’ve said that three times now - and the words he used obviously bothered people or he wouldn’t have had to apologize. That said, I don’t see how the statement was racist. He used a word that racists often use, but I already said and you just demonstrated, saying “nigger” doesn’t automatically make a statement racist. If it WAS racist, I’m sure you’d be able to tell me what he meant. You’ve deliberately not done that, so I’m thinking you can’t.
duffer, I didn’t say people wouldn’t be offended by the words. That’s a given. It’s why Byrd shouldn’t have said what he said in the first place, and why he quickly apologized. Then again, people have been offended by the word “niggard,” so I’m trying to look at what Byrd said instead of just saying “he’s a racist because he said nigger.” I don’t see any racist intent in the statement, and I don’t even know what those sentences are supposed to mean. If he’d said ‘There are white niggers out there, those kids wearing their jeans below their asses and all, and they’re just as bad as the black niggers,’ I wouldn’t be arguing this point.
And I’m sure you talk with them too.
Yet you agreed with my point, my main point, my sole point, that this event should not have been held at Douglass’ home. Still, you feel like ranting and rambling. Go figure.
I just repeated what happened. I also repeated what the Washington Post and Newsmax said. Of course, it’s easier when you tie that ribbon to a your crazy kite to make my statement seem like I’m running Pirro’s agenda. And now you’ve unspooled and frankly it ain’t pretty.
As you speak from experience obviously.
No, because that would require independent thought and not your obviously shameful party loyalty and blindness that keeps you linked to defending Clinton.
I thought you might want to know since you obviously you’re trying to stick me in a right-wing box over and over. It’s really sad that you’re like that.
Feel free to make “nigger” part of your daily vernacular and not use this idiotic excuse that it’s not a racist word (But some racists may use it). If that’s the crutch you’re using to support your argument, I’m surprised that you think your position could still stand.
Read the links, John.
I disagree that anyone here has said that.
What has been suggested is that Lott’s past acts and recent associations, taken together with his voting record, raise questions about his attitudes on race.
Poll tax!
How I love ya
How I love ya
My dear old poll tax.
- Tom Lehrer (to the tune of “Swanee”).
If only.
I’m trying to make a basic point that you’ve missed: repeating the rest of the allegations and targeting Clinton was dumb. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, and I took you at your word the first time you said you weren’t out to smear her. But you picked a dumb way to go about your actual goal, which was saying “this was a bad place to have an event for Robert Byrd.” Ta da.
You know what’s really ironic about this? I don’t like Hillary Clinton. So your conclusion that I’m doing this because I’m a partisan Democrat (if I was that partisan, I wouldn’t have admitted this was a bad idea) or that I’m doing it out of love for Hillary (I didn’t vote for her in 2000 for the Senate, and it’s possible I won’t vote for her in 2006 and 2008 as well; I’ve never been a fan) are pretty far off-base.
Is there some reason you can’t just answer a simple question? I’m not asking you to publish the OED.
I’m not saying people should or shouldn’t be offended by the use of “nigger.” I’m a fan of finding out context before condemning someone for what they say, however, and I just can’t find the racist intent in what Robert Byrd said in 2001 (as opposed to the other statements you quoted, where there’s no question about what he says or means). He said something confusing and compounded it with a stupid choice of words, but I can’t find a way to interpret his statements to mean “white people are better than black people.”
I never said that these were equal. However, these aren’t what we’re discussing.
We’re discussing speaking at the CCC, meeting repeatedly with their leaders, and probably being a member of the CCC (did you read my links and my excerpts?) We’re talking about someone who, within the past couple decades, has had sustained, repeated, and intimate involvement with a racist group.
Yes, he apologized and denounced their racist agenda; and as I said, I am satisfied by that. However, I reject the idea that he had nothing to apologize for: he had plenty to apologize for.
John, that’s bullshit. That’s not at all what I’m doing. Care to show me where I’ve called Bush racist, or Delay racist, or Cheney racist, or Scalia racist, or any of a number of other people racist?
What I’ve done is I’ve called someone’s activities racist when they repeatedly involved themselves with segregationists and praised those segregationists, especially when they praised those segregationists for specifically segregationist activities (remind me what Thurmond’s splinter party was called?) It’s offensive bullshit to suggest that I’m calling him racist for disagreeing with me on legislation.
Daniel
Hillary Clinton likes to play both sides. She likes to obscure her actual opinion in order to just politic it up, and play the game. I don’t think she’s racist. I just think she’s a really shitty senator. I for one am going to vote against her next year.
Erek
:smack: Wise man say: Google first, snark later. “The Dixiecrat Party” isn’t as damning a name as “The Segregationist Party,” which I’d somehow got it in my head was the name of Thurmond’s splinter party. And the formal name was actually “The States Rights Party.”
Granted, the party formed exactly because Democrat Truman was pushing civil rights initiatives that segregationists like Thurmond found to be unacceptable. But my above-quoted snark was wrong, and I apologize.*
Daniel
- Note that I’m apologizing for something I did that was wrong, not for your misinterpretation of my innocent comments.
Looks like she’s doomed now, huh?