The W
Views: 99946288
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@440 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trent Lott's Big Mouth (Page 3)
This thread has 81 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2360 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (62 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 81 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#41 Posted on
My saying that I think I am smarter than 90% of the black voters is not racist. I think I am smarter than 90% of ALL voters, black or white. I am an equal opportunity egotist! I think a great deal of people get sucked in by that sort of "we want to HELP you, they don't, so they are evil" mentality because they do not bother to look at the facts of any particular issue. A great majority of Americans get their "facts" from the liberal press, and when the press is so blatantly bias, how are these people expected to make informed decisions, and see just how the wool is being pulled over their eyes?
Oh- and we can't forget one thing I forgot to list.. McCall's campaign in New York? The Deomcrats had a fighting chance to elect a BLACK governor in New York, and the guy had to drag, kicking and screaming, money from the DNC that they PROMISED him for his campaign. I find that Demos preach a lot about civil rights, but in times like these when an agressive campaign backed with all the muscle they have would get a black person into power, they suddenly don't have much interest in it....
Seems to me like they are only "pro-minority" when those minorities are NOT empowered, and do not rely on the Democrats for hand-outs. The strong, independant minorities are not worth their time. I wonder why that is?



My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1429 days
Last activity: 337 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      Don't act like the Republicans can't get nasty when they have to.

    That's not being nasty. That's playing to win.



Granted. I wish they'd replay that Saturday Night Live sketch from 91, "Democratic Campaign '92 - The Race to Avoid Being the Guy who Loses to Bush."

But I think the Dems are fresh outta Southern governors to bail their asses out this year.



"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me

Never been a Wiener of the Day

RFMC Vice President (I think)

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Roy Barnes was their best hope; and he choked.



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Fuck the South. We do not need another Southern Governor. The Democrats can lose every single former confederate state and still win easily with the right combination. We need to pander to the Midwest, not the South. One of those newly elected big midwestern state democratic governors would be a good choice in 2008.

Oh- and we can't forget one thing I forgot to list.. McCall's campaign in New York? The Democrats had a fighting chance to elect a BLACK governor in New York, and the guy had to drag, kicking and screaming, money from the DNC that they PROMISED him for his campaign. I find that Demos preach a lot about civil rights, but in times like these when an agressive campaign backed with all the muscle they have would get a black person into power, they suddenly don't have much interest in it....

Well, to be fair the DNC pulled out all the stops for Ron Kirk, who didn't have anything more than a shot in purgatory. McCall ran a god-awful campaign, and his opponent was a popular incumbent who essentially ran as a Democrat. Backing McCall was throwing money down the drain.

Also, you have to understand New York Politics. The Democrats always have, and always will have the Assembly. Same with the GOP and the Senate. As a result, there is never the threat of total control by one party, and so while the Governorship is the brass ring for NY politicians, it's never that big a deal for the National Partys (even though it's a big state) because it won't have that much of an impact on policy, because nothing ever gets passed without bi-partisan support anyway.




Liberals - Damn sexy chicks that aren't ashamed to put out in ways you didn't even know existed.
---real life bedroom experiences
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 479 days
Last activity: 479 days
#45 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Fuck the South. We do not need another Southern Governor. The Democrats can lose every single former confederate state and still win easily with the right combination. We need to pander to the Midwest, not the South. One of those newly elected big midwestern state democratic governors would be a good choice in 2008.

    Oh- and we can't forget one thing I forgot to list.. McCall's campaign in New York? The Democrats had a fighting chance to elect a BLACK governor in New York, and the guy had to drag, kicking and screaming, money from the DNC that they PROMISED him for his campaign. I find that Demos preach a lot about civil rights, but in times like these when an agressive campaign backed with all the muscle they have would get a black person into power, they suddenly don't have much interest in it....

    Well, to be fair the DNC pulled out all the stops for Ron Kirk, who didn't have anything more than a shot in purgatory. McCall ran a god-awful campaign, and his opponent was a popular incumbent who essentially ran as a Democrat. Backing McCall was throwing money down the drain.

    Also, you have to understand New York Politics. The Democrats always have, and always will have the Assembly. Same with the GOP and the Senate. As a result, there is never the threat of total control by one party, and so while the Governorship is the brass ring for NY politicians, it's never that big a deal for the National Partys (even though it's a big state) because it won't have that much of an impact on policy, because nothing ever gets passed without bi-partisan support anyway.







Remember, the last Democrat to win who wasn't from the South was Kennedy, and that will be 44 years ago when the next election comes around.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Yeah, but it isn't like we've had this string of a few dozen Democratic Southern Governors. We've had 2 in a row. That's not a pattern, nor a necessity.



Liberals - Damn sexy chicks that aren't ashamed to put out in ways you didn't even know existed.
---real life bedroom experiences
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#47 Posted on

    Originally posted by asteroidboy

      Originally posted by Grimis

        Originally posted by asteroidboy
        Ah, Clinton and his heavily compromised values. At least he doesn't look like a 12-year-old who gets to wear his daddy's suit.

      That sounds like the bitterness of an Ann Richards voter...

      And if you want to talk about racist ads, how about the ads the NAACP ran against Bush trying to make Bush responsible for the Texas dragging deaths even though he put to death two of the three perps in that case?



    Yes, that was a stupid ad. Stupider than Bush's decision not to support hate crimes legislation. Almost as stupid as Rick Perry accusing Tony Sanchez of involvement in the murder of a DEA agent. Don't act like the Republicans can't get nasty when they have to. Just ask John McCain how dirty Bush's henchmen can get.

    And Ann Richards is more of an authentic Texan than George W. Bush could EVER hope to be, no matter how many denim shirts and cowboy hats he wears.



Heh... he'll probably never come to New Haven, now that we have those signs up reminding everyone that he was born here.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Lets not forget that it was a Republican President in the first place who freed, and lead a war to ensure that blacks throughout the country were free of slavery.


Well, yes, but you've got to realize that they switched sides around Wilson. Back then, the current Democrats would be considered Republicans.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Punkinhead:

"I'm gonna go dig up a date!"
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Wilson? I'm a proud Democrat, but it wasn't until Goldwater/Johnson in 1964 (and it can be argued even later)that the Democrats were more on the right side of this issue than the GOP.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally posted by asteroidboy

      Originally posted by Grimis

        Originally posted by asteroidboy
        Ah, Clinton and his heavily compromised values. At least he doesn't look like a 12-year-old who gets to wear his daddy's suit.

      That sounds like the bitterness of an Ann Richards voter...

      And if you want to talk about racist ads, how about the ads the NAACP ran against Bush trying to make Bush responsible for the Texas dragging deaths even though he put to death two of the three perps in that case?



    Yes, that was a stupid ad. Stupider than Bush's decision not to support hate crimes legislation. Almost as stupid as Rick Perry accusing Tony Sanchez of involvement in the murder of a DEA agent. Don't act like the Republicans can't get nasty when they have to. Just ask John McCain how dirty Bush's henchmen can get.

    And Ann Richards is more of an authentic Texan than George W. Bush could EVER hope to be, no matter how many denim shirts and cowboy hats he wears.



Hate crimes legislation is the most asinine thing in the world. A crime is a crime is a crime. The white murderer of a white man should get the same jail sentence as the white murderer of a black man, or the black murderer of a white man, and so forth. Hate crimes legislation is absolute and total bunk, and, furthermore, is inherently racist.

And, authentic Texan? What the hell does that mean?

(edited by PalpatineW on 23.12.02 1848)


Damn your eyes!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#50 Posted on
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by asteroidboy

        Originally posted by Grimis

          Originally posted by asteroidboy
          Ah, Clinton and his heavily compromised values. At least he doesn't look like a 12-year-old who gets to wear his daddy's suit.

        That sounds like the bitterness of an Ann Richards voter...

        And if you want to talk about racist ads, how about the ads the NAACP ran against Bush trying to make Bush responsible for the Texas dragging deaths even though he put to death two of the three perps in that case?



      Yes, that was a stupid ad. Stupider than Bush's decision not to support hate crimes legislation. Almost as stupid as Rick Perry accusing Tony Sanchez of involvement in the murder of a DEA agent. Don't act like the Republicans can't get nasty when they have to. Just ask John McCain how dirty Bush's henchmen can get.

      And Ann Richards is more of an authentic Texan than George W. Bush could EVER hope to be, no matter how many denim shirts and cowboy hats he wears.



    Hate crimes legislation is the most asinine thing in the world. A crime is a crime is a crime. The white murderer of a white man should get the same jail sentence as the white murderer of a black man, or the black murderer of a white man, and so forth. Hate crimes legislation is absolute and total bunk, and, furthermore, is inherently racist.

    And, authentic Texan? What the hell does that mean?

    (edited by PalpatineW on 23.12.02 1848)



I think they mean someone who's actually from Texas, as opposed to someone who pretends to be "just like you" and a "Washington outsider", who just happened to be filthy rich and had a dad who was head of the CIA and then Ambassador to China and then Vice-President of the United States and then President of the United States. Kinda like how Hillary Clinton isn't an "authentic New Yorker". See, I put it in that context and you can suddenly understand it.

And the "hate crimes" thing is just a joke that I don't understand why people get so pissed off about. A white guy kills a black guy in cold blood - he gets life in prison or the death penalty (depending on the state.) A white guy kills a white guy in cold blood - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A black guy kills a white guy - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A black guy kills a black guy - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A Chinese guy kills a Puerto Rican - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. I fail to see how hate crime lesiglation, when it comes to murder cases, changes anything.

Trust me, it's not racist. In the summer of 2000, we had two really fun days in Pittsburgh. One day, a black man named Ronald Taylor (who happened to be one of my best friend's cousins) picked up a gun and decided he was going to kill all the white people he saw, taking out about half a dozen. About a month after (or maybe a month before, I can't remember), a white man named Richard Baumhammer decided to pick up a gun and kill anyone he saw who wasn't a white Christian. Both men were charged with hate crimes, and both are sitting on Death Row as I type this.

But, you do understand why spraypainting "METALLICA RULES" on someone garage door is a different crime than spraying "KILL ALL NIGGERS", don't you? Because that's the real purpose of hate crimes legislation.

You know that bill before the Supreme Court about the legality of cross-burning? Hate-crimes legislation is the ONLY reason that they're going to rule against the KKK on that one.

I know it's another right-wing scare tactic buzzword they like to throw out, but I really don't see the substance in this one.

Merry Christmas.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 23.12.02 2012)


"Every Who down in Who-Ville liked Christmas a lot, but the Grinch who lived in a cave just north of Who-Ville did not. So, the US sent B-2s to take him out - but, to our suprise, the Whos, who we thought we our allies, snuck the Grinch out inside a hollow Roast Beast. So, all we nabbed were low-level operatives, like the Zizzer Zazzer-Zuzz, who we shipped to Guantanamo Bay (and we have solid leads on the whereabouts of David Donald Doo and his Duck Dog too).

Then we accidenly killed the Cat In The Hat when an unmanned drone mistook him for the Grinch. Frustrated in our hunt, we then threatened to invade the Jungle of Newell unless Horton the Elephant agreed to an UN Arms Inspection.

Then we figured out that Sam I Am was funneling profits from his Green Eggs and Ham business into secret Grinch accounts - and we arrested One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish and Blue Fish who were running a sleeper cell in Buffalo! And still no clue about the Grinch, even though the CIA suspects that he masterminded the recent bombings on the street where the grickle grass grows that killed The Lorax and a group of Fiffer-Feffer-Feffs! And then...

...Aw, to hell with it, kid. Go read "Frosty The Snowman" instead"
-----DERF www.derfcity.com
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2234 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#51 Posted on
late to the party as usual

    A crime is a crime is a crime. The white murderer of a white man should get the same jail sentence as the white murderer of a black man, or the black murderer of a white man, and so forth.


The fact that this *doesn't* happen is one of the reasons that there are moratoriums on executions in some states (like MD) and why there IS hate crime legislation.


    Free Speech is Free Speech


Freedom Speech isn't absolute. There are clearly limits set upon it as a result of the (a) Bill of Rights and (b) case law. Politicians clearly don't have true freedom of speech. And the Klan can't burn crosses in public parks. Thomas spoke out of turn for goodness sake.

DrOp--thinks the "R" word should be used VERY carefully. Also thinks Lott's record speaks for itself. Yup.



(edited by DrOp on 23.12.02 2049)


...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    See, I put it in that context and you can suddenly understand it.
For some reason this had me rolling with laughter!

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    And the "hate crimes" thing is just a joke that I don't understand why people get so pissed off about. A white guy kills a black guy in cold blood - he gets life in prison or the death penalty (depending on the state.) A white guy kills a white guy in cold blood - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A black guy kills a white guy - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A black guy kills a black guy - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. A Chinese guy kills a Puerto Rican - he gets life in prison or the death penalty. I fail to see how hate crime lesiglation, when it comes to murder cases, changes anything.

    Trust me, it's not racist.


The problem stems around the fact that it makes thought a crime even though thought doesn't have to be proven to make it a thoughtcrime. Murdering somebody in cold blood is hate, regardless of whether or not its white-on-white, white-on-black, or white-on-vegetable. The penalty for first degree murder should be death. And regardless of your death penalty views, it should be uniform for all citizens.

Also, a lot of high-profile black-on-white crimes(please see the recent trials in Omaha) are not charged as hate crimes due to political pressure, thus furthering the point of the conservatives.



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
DrOp: If our laws are being applied unevenly, as you suggest, then the solution is not to make special laws for each particular skin tone. The solution is to enforce the laws equally among all citizens.

Fuzzy: I still can't get behind hate crimes legislation. It's too nebulous. Instead of making up hate crimes legislation, why not charge the person who scrawls racial graffitti with assault? I'm with Grimis: hate crimes legislation rest too heavily on guessing what the perpetrator is thinking, and I don't want any thoughtcrimes here, no matter how vile the thought.



Damn your eyes!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 81 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#54 Posted on
I think there is a big difference between tagging "Metallica Rules" and "Kill all Niggers" on a wall. One is simple vandalism, one is a threat, and displaying the intent to commit murder. Of course the latter should be taken more seriously- the racial aspect of the threat is not an issue.



My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2234 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#55 Posted on
PalpatineW:

Can it be all so simple? Your statement is an ideal that we somehow haven't been able to achieve yet. I would love to see laws enforced equally. I don't see how that has one-to-one correllation with hate crimes and legislation surrounding them.

On Hate Crime Legislation:
I think that the regs *could* be more specific if they wanted, but keep in mind that laws need to be broad enough to stand the test of time.

I think if someone painted "Nigger" or a Swastika on someone's garage, they can/could be charged with vandalism as well as a hate crime. It would then be up to the lawyers on either side to argue their case. You can talk about intent, but isn't the intent determination the difference between manslaughter, and the degrees of murder? Our legal system determies intent all the time. The entire KaZAa debate is about intent now (not to switch subjects).

PoolBoy: How can you say that the racial aspect of "Kill All Niggers" isn't an issue? I mean, it may not be an issue for to to you, but I can think of many (myself included) for whom it would be an issue. I think it would be importan there to recognize that it IS an issue for some and seek to understand why that is within a historical and personal context.

I don't think that its very realistic to expect us to collectively "get over" the issue of race when it has been SO ingrained into our country and culture for 100s of years now. We've got a lot of work to do.

DrOp--it takes a LONG time to unlearn behavior and culture.



...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by DrOp
    I think it would be importan there to recognize that it IS an issue for some and seek to understand why that is within a historical and personal context.

Under those conditions though, that means we're back to the point of any crime constituting a hate crime based on whether it is an issue for some. Does that mean if I shoot somebody with a Muhammed Ali shirt on and make a comment about draft dodging that I've committed a thought crime against draft dodgers? Where does it all end?



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2234 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#57 Posted on
Grimis--you're splitting hairs. Comparing draft-dodging to anti-semitism, racism or violence begotten by homophobia is a huge strech (to say the least).

Hate crimes aren't issues for just 5 or 10 people. They are issues for many, many people. It's not about (IMO) giving any one group special treatment. It's about saying, "Doing these things (and those things should be defined) in our country to people is SO unacceptable and aggregious that we have a classification for it called "hate crimes."

Hate crimes, sex crimes, etc.


DrOp--doesn't understand what's so hard about all this.



...And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Replace anti-draft dodging with anti-Christian then. Does that make it any better. There was a recent story out of Chicago where a 19-year old homosexual killed 51-year old Mary Stachowicz who was speaking to him about her religion and why homosexuality was a sin in Chirstianity. While yes, maybe proselytizing her religion killed her because she was a Christian who disapproved of his lifestyle. He was not charged with a hate crime. Why?

NOW do you see the double standard and duplicity in hate crimes laws?

EDIT: Remember The killers of Matthew Shepherd were charged with hate crimes.

(edited by Grimis on 24.12.02 1418)

What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
For Dr. Optagon:

If you think it's a pipe-dream to get our current laws enforced, what makes you think even MORE laws are gonna do the trick?

Also, I don't see why writing "kill whitey" or "kill the darkies" needs to have a more harsh penalty than "kill DrOp!" Hate crimes legislation speaks entirely to motive, and is incredibly subjective. I'm fine with making it a crime to intimidate someone through words or vandalism or anything else. In fact, I've a suspicion such behavior is already illegal. Do we really need new laws? I say, no.

(edited by PalpatineW on 24.12.02 1421)


Damn your eyes!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
This is my problem with hate crimes legislation. It's a bullshit political solution to make nice suburban liberals feel like we're doing something about racism and homophobia without actually doing shit that affects anyone's lives except dead people.

Well, we won't let Gays serve openly in the Military, or protect them from discrimination at their jobs or in housing, but we'll REALLY get behind this hate crime legislation so everyone knows that we think people who kill gay people are really, REALLY bad people.

It's all garbage.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: This is getting stupid now
Next thread: Free Health care BS
Previous thread: A Christmas Thought
(2360 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well Nader had very well developed ideas, theories and platforms, but they were all in a narrow field - consumer protection and corporate economics.
- MoeGates, Ralph Nader (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trent Lott's Big Mouth (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.