Re: Senator Byrd's friend in a jam

by SFCraig Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:01 pm

I have much more respect for a sinner who has seen the light. The damnation belongs to those who left the Democratic Party DUE to their support of minorities.

Byrd is a bigger man than Strom, Trent, and Wallace combined.

by shermangeneral Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:11 pm

And again aaron attributes things to me I never said.

I believe in repentance and redemption for everyone.

by Aaron Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:10 pm

Didn't a great man once say something like...

"By the words you shall know them"

by ziggy Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:33 pm

No.

So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.

Matthew 7:20

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

by **SheikBen** Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:48 am

SFCraig wrote:I have much more respect for a sinner who has seen the light. The damnation belongs to those who left the Democratic Party DUE to their support of minorities.

Byrd is a bigger man than Strom, Trent, and Wallace combined.

Southern conservatives left the Democrats over Affirmative Action as well as abortion and school prayer. I can't speak for Strom, Trent, and Wallace, and would not care to, but the idea of "selective damnation" in this case, not coming from God but from a Democrat (and there is a difference), is a little disappointing.

With the exception of Trent Lott saying something stupid at Strom's birthday party (what was he, 98?) and Robert Byrd dropping the "n bomb" on Fox News, do we really have anything to go by in condemning these men as racists? It's plenty to like the issues they favor or oppose them, and support or reject them accordingly. I'm sure we have all thought or said things that we wish we hadn't.

by **SheikBen** Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:51 am

To put it another way, I don't like Byrd's policies, so I didn't vote for him (I was one of only a handful, I think the fellow's name was Gallaher who ran against him).

That Byrd was a klukker doesn't help, but that was the past. Like his policies and vote for him, or don't like them and don't vote for him. Trent the same way. I would have voted for him had I lived in Mississippi. What he said at Strom's birthday party was stupid and showed his ignorance, at best. But his policies were good.

by **Stephanie** Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:05 am

Well said, Mike.

by SamCogar Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:06 am

shermangeneral wrote:And again aaron attributes things to me I never said.

I believe in repentance and redemption for everyone.

But only if they are Republicans ...... you NEVER let them or anyone else FORGET what it was that they repented or redempted, ...... do you Shermmy.

Kinda like the wife who forgives her husband for "having an affair" ....... but reminds him and and everyone else every other day about his past dastardly deed.

Senator Byrd's friend in a jam - Page 3 197570

Senator Byrd's friend in a jam - Page 3 197570

Senator Byrd's friend in a jam - Page 3 249131

.

by SFCraig Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:26 pm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

"As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters."

Lott also hung out with the CCC in recent years.

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Lott/lottbigots.jpg

by **SheikBen** Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:16 pm

SFCraig,

States' rights have been turned into code for racism, but are you familiar with the first use of nullification (the doctrine that states can ignore federal laws they consider to be unconstitutional?)

It was practiced by two states against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had made it a crime to criticize the federal government.

Wisconsin also nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, refusing to allow it's citizens to be forced to return "escaped slaves" to the south.

States' rights means a whole lot more than racism, Craig. Really, the states need to have more power so that people have more power to choose under what kind of government they wish to live in. It's a pity so many Californians want the courts to make Nebraska like California.

by SamCogar Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:59 am

SFCraig wrote:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

"As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters."

Lott also hung out with the CCC in recent years.

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Lott/lottbigots.jpg

Well Craig, I have never voted for or against Trent Lott, and I doubt that you have ever either.

But you can betcha the majority of voters in Mississippi have ....... with the majority voting for him.

For anyone outside of Mississippi to be criticizing Lott for his actions, ...... is to condone a Dictatorship ........ and Democracy be damned.

.

by **Stephanie** Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:56 pm

SFCraig wrote:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

"As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters."

Lott also hung out with the CCC in recent years.

[url=http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Lott/lottbigots.jpg

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Lott/lottbigots.jpg[/quote[/url]]

Craig,

Are you stating you don't believe the states have rights all their own? I believe the states do have rights and the federal government infringes upon them all the time. Why should the federal government be able to tell Californias they can't use marijuana for medicinal purposes? You don't think the federal government is interfering with the rights of Californians to receive appropriate medical care? I sure do.

by **ohio county** Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:56 pm

Liberal orthodoxy has it that "states' rights" is conservative code for racial bias. There is a big annual fair at Philadelphia, MS and all state-wide candidates speak there. It is the thing to do. Another post hoc ergo propter hoc.

by **Stephanie** Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:37 pm

Conservatives have code words? When am I gonna get my list? Sheeesh.

by ziggy Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:12 pm

Stephanie wrote:Conservatives have code words? When am I gonna get my list? Sheeesh.

We get that "list" of the political connotations (sometimes dubbed as "code") of certain words every time we read or listen to political dialogue- whether from conservatives, liberals, libertarians or fascists.

by Aaron Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:52 pm

I guess your code list didn't include socialist or communist Frank while facist made the list.

by **Stephanie** Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:54 pm

Oh bull. All this business about states' rights being some sort of code for bigotry is just a bunch of hype manufactured by the enemies of conservatives, and it is my belief that everyone posting to this thread KNOWS that.

by ziggy Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:34 pm

Aaron wrote:I guess your code list didn't include socialist or communist Frank while facist made the list.

We get that "list" of the political connotations (sometimes dubbed as "code") of certain words every time we read or listen to political dialogue- whether from socialists, communists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, or fascists.

Satisfied now, Aaron?

by ziggy Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:38 pm

Stephanie wrote:Oh bull. All this business about states' rights being some sort of code for bigotry is just a bunch of hype manufactured by the enemies of conservatives, and it is my belief that everyone posting to this thread KNOWS that.

Well, today is the first I had read anyone asserting anything about "states' rights being some sort of code for bigotry". So maybe I need to cut a couple windows in the walls of my cave. Heck, maybe if I would get me one of them TV thingys, I could really know what's going on out there.

by **Stephanie** Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:45 pm

Forgive me, Ziggy. I think our friend Craig has been drinking Daily Kos koolaid or something. I've never heard that before either. Jimmy, on the other hand, has. I attribute this to my long held opinion that Jimmy finds it important to know what far-left extremists are saying and doing.

Jimmy is a lot smarter than me.

by Aaron Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:01 pm

I've never heard it before either Stephanie. I understand why those on the far left would say that and I'm not suprised but I've never heard it. It is something that I would expect from the left.

by SFCraig Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:22 pm

Oh, it certainly is code. I do believe in State's Rights. Southern racists adopted their staunch belief in them in response to Federal Government involvement in the Voting Rights Act.

Prove me wrong.

by **SheikBen** Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:58 pm

It was hardly the first time that States' Rights were advocated.

You threw out Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Miss and Jimmy labelled that as a logical fallacy. Is there any reason to believe that states' rights in 1980 meant the desire to reverse the voting rights act of 1965? Did Reagan in Philadelphia call for it's repeal?

by SFCraig Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:07 pm

Here, from a conservative:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hayward121902.asp

"To be sure, it is difficult to imagine that Reagan was oblivious to the historical baggage of the phrase "states' rights" in Mississippi, and it cannot be ruled out that he was conscious of the problematic implication of his choice of words"

The rest of the article is a defense of Lott and bashing on Democrats. Yet, he concedes the code words "State's rights".

No?

Philadelphia was the ground war against the denial of voting rights (and the site of the murder of the Civil Rights Workers). How was it chosen as Reagan's launch and his use of the term? Answer: Deliberately and at Lott's urging.

It's got Neo-Confederate written all over it.

It means, frankly, that a State can decide what to do with it's N-------s.

Why were the Dixiecrats the "State's Rights Party"?

by **Stephanie** Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:33 pm

You love to spin stuff, don't you?

But "states' rights" was a sound principle of federalism that was debased by Democratic party rule in the south, for which it is not Republicans who owe an apology. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, and this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement. "Most of those at the rally," the New York Times reported, "apparently regarded the statement as having been made in that context." And as a westerner Reagan had fully associated himself with the "Sagebrush Rebellion," for whom "states' rights" had no racial content, but rather meant wresting control of land from Washington. This was far from an outlandish or minority view. The same day Reagan made his "states' rights" remark in Mississippi, the National Governors Association issued what the Associated Press described as "a militant call for reduced federal involvement in state and local affairs." Arizona's liberal Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt wrote in a New York Times op-ed article that "It is time to take hard look at 'states' rights' — and responsibilities — and to sort out the respective functions of the federal government and the states." I missed where Jack White added Babbitt to his roster of racists (never mind Carter's calculated appeal to "ethnic purity" in 1976).

Are you, and others on the far left suggesting, that states' rights can never be mentioned in the state of Mississippi again, or what?

by Sponsored content