🚀 go-pugleaf

Geez, roach, that's a hell of a paragraph.  Take a breath once in a
while. <sigh>

I never apologized for Thurmond or Jackson or even Lott.  My point is
simply that everyone is jumping on Lott saying that he's used the
occasion of Strom's birthday as a way to hold forth on his (Lott's)
closet racism in a way that is supposed to be so clever as to pass
under the radar of the average folk.  Bullshit.  Lott is not that
clever, and his is not that well spoken.  Lott is an idot; an
anti-statesman.  Anyone who claims to see devious subtlety from Trent
Lott on any subject at any time immediately exposes their assertions as
opportunistic grandstanding.    

Are Lott's extemporaneous,  ill-spoken words the best that folks can
find to launch their indignation against?  What sport is that?  

In article <719hvukejr46uu96r4ct5ijlas4djgv8sr@4ax.com>, vonroach
<vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, Mike Epperson <mikee4821@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <MPG.186198c76ef995dd9897bc@news.verizon.net>, Jeffrey E.
> >Salzberg <jeff.salzberg@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you saying that it's a lie that Lott said at least twice that the 
> >> country would have been better off if Thurmond, who ran on a "segregation 
> >> forever" platform, had been elected?  
> >
> >So is Jesse Jackson an anti-Semite for for the taste-poor things he's
> >said over the years?  The fire's hot!  Let's get EVERYONE up on the
> >spit.
> >
> >If Lott had said, "God bless Strom!  We needed more racists like him!",
> >that would be pretty bad.  Or even if he'd said "the country would have
> >been better off if Thurmond had been eleced *because* he ran on a
> >segregation forever platform."  But that's not the case.  Lott's just
> >trying to make the old geezer feel good as he turns 100.  Saying nice
> >things about him.  Whoop dee doo.  Lott is not a clever speaker.  He's
> >a blunt axe.  He's always saying stoopid shit.  It doen't male him a
> >racist.  Just a dumnass.
> >
> >Hell, Jesse's said TONS more inflammatory stuff than Lott.  And Jesse
> >IS a word craftsman.  I'd be more inclined to hold Jackson to the
> >literal disection of his statements than I would Lott.
> 
> J. Jackson, Lois Farrakhan, `Rev' Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Shelia Jackson
> Lee, and the Congressional Black Caucus are all racist and most are
> antisemitic
> as well. They exploit racism to get elected or use it to extort money. Strom
> Thurmond was a candidate of the _States Rights_ Party known as the Dixiecrats.
> Their main interest was in securing for the individual States their right to
> the
> oil that was found beneath their tidelands. Segregation was just one issue. On
> that point - has forced integration of our public schools and busing help our
> public education? Have personal attitude really been changed that much? Why do
> many black students resegregate themselves into cliques in desegregated
> schools?
> Why do many neighborhoods retain a racial aspect? Have quotas worked?
> Why were Senator Fullbright of Arkansas (Bill Clinton's mentor) and Governor
> Orville Faubus (another of B. Clintons idols) such ardent segregationists that
> President Eisenhower had to mobilize the National Guard to enforce the
> desegregation ruling at Central High School in Little Rock Arkansas? Why did
> the
> same Senator Fullbright along with Sen Albert Gore (Al Gore's father) oppose
> Civil Rights Legislation in the US Senate? Why did it require Republican
> support
> to pass that legislation over Southern Democrat opposition? Why is Senator
> Robert Byrd a former member of the KKK who has stated that he knows both white
> and black niggers been tolerated in the US Senate where he was the Democrat
> Majority Leader for many years? If you want facts, let's get them all out on
> the
> table. Finally Strom Thurmond opposed Harry Truman, Tom Dewey, and former VP
> Henry Wallace (a communist candidate) in the Presidential election in
> question -
> why did Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota lead a walkout at the Democratic National
> Convention that nominated Truman and Senator Alban Barkley of Kentucky over
> the
> issue of a Civil Rights Plank in the Party Platform? Let's chew on real
> historical facts rather than personal ideal imagination. The easy way to bring
> the left wing press down on one's head is to dare to discuss facts that
> disagree
> with their imagined ideal. Do you still harbor all your prejudices that you
> held
> in 1946, if you were even alive? I hope not. Do you ever look back at the past
> with nostalgia? When you graduate from your childhood and adolesence, you
> probably will. Why did Civil Rights have to wade through the courts all the
> way
> to the Supreme Court to become enforced under  Eisenhower. Did FDR and Harry
> Truman drop the ball on this issue? They were both Democrat Presidents. If you
> want to make it a political issue, Civil Rights legislation - long after the
> Courts and Eisenhower acted was forced down the throat of a Democrat Congress
> by
> LBJ only with the help of the Republican minority. The Democrat Party has
> historically been the party of the South and was during the Civil War. The
> Republican Party was the northern Party that favored Emancipation. Lincoln in
> his debates acknowledged that he had southern roots but had joined the Whigs
> and
> later the Republican Party because of opposition to slavery. Few elections are
> one issue elections. Party affiliations are very strong in the South. The
> Dixicrats, regardless of what your opinion of that Party was, was closer to
> the
> old southern Democrat Party than was the Party of FDR (a coalition of unions,
> urban machines, populists, and southern Democrats held together by hard
> economic
> times and put together by Big Jim Farley of NY (FDR's political geru).
> Frankly,
> I agree with the Lott assessment to the extent it would have preserved States
> Rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and given to the States the oil
> that
> was located beneath their tidelands, that was what was at issue. Eisenhower,
> the
> National Guard and the Courts had all ready decided the `Civil Rights' issue.
> And I also wonder if enforced social change is a good way to proceed in such
> matters where the Courts and the President have already acted. Sounds more like
> exploitation for a political issue. But I'm sure the modern sound byte mentality
> doesn't want to take the time to investigate the actual facts.