Kellyanne Conway a woman that girls can look up to

[BugI02]

When I read that, my first thought is that the trouble he is speaking about has to do with XXXXXX XXXXXX. If Lott thought that was something innocent when he said it; he was completely, hopelessly tone deaf

Kut, I reference that phrase because I think it perfectly sums up the concept I think he meant. I'm not trying to troll, and agonized whether to use it or not. Let me know right away if its beyond the pale and I'll take it down

 

[Woobie]

What you think indicates your personal bias. That was exhibited in the media projection at the time. People who think in political, instead of racial terms thought differently.

And the main reason I didn't take any criticism of the comment seriously, is that the loudest voices calling for Lott's resignation were the same people who adored Robert Byrd.

 

[BugI02]

I lack any of the background unless I look it up. All I can tell you is when I read that one of my first thoughts was 'Oh no, you didn't' Pure Gestalt

 

[Kutnupe14]

When I read that, my first thought is that the trouble he is speaking about has to do with XXXXXX XXXXXX. If Lott thought that was something innocent when he said it; he was completely, hopelessly tone deaf

Kut, I reference that phrase because I think it perfectly sums up the concept I think he meant. I'm not trying to troll, and agonized whether to use it or not. Let me know right away if its beyond the pale and I'll take it down

I'm not offended, but thanks for the consideration

 

[hoosierdoc]

And the main reason I didn't take any criticism of the comment seriously, is that the loudest voices calling for Lott's resignation were the same people who adored Robert Byrd.

ex act ly

 

[hoosierdoc]

It wasn't a stupid thing to say. He made a flattering remark at a birthday party. And the Republicans were weak to bail on Lott.

Yep, they are candy-asses.

and Kut could probably be a good field goal kicker as much as he's used to stretching and moving goal posts

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, maybe he meant the totality of his platform was a lot better than Truman's. Is it so hard to believe a Republican wishes a Democrat hadn't won?

Is this the "totality of his platform" that was superior to Truman's?

Minor/Third Party Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party

And what are you talking about a Republican wishing a "Democrat hadn't won?" Strom Thuman WAS a Democrat...prior to the '48 election and immediately after. He stayed within the Democratic Party until the 60s. And if that's a notion one wishes to press, then why is a Republican (Lott) saying the "Sprit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform?" Obviously, Davis was a Democrat, so does that mean that Lott would've supported Davis, had he been alive? There's no way, you can keep a straight face and try to tell anyone with a lick of sense that Lott's words, concerning Thurmond and Davis, were nothing more than a opposition to federal govt overreach. It's painfully clear what is meant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yep, they are candy-asses.

and Kut could probably be a good field goal kicker as much as he's used to stretching and moving goal posts

Thurmond was trash when he ran for president. Lott was trash when he uttered his words at Thurmond's birthday party. For the sake of their souls, I hope they both found God, because there aren't "Colored Only" facilities in the Kingdom.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Thurmond may have been trash, but Lott was not. Heh, that rhymed.

pretty sure comments about a guy running for president 60 years prior at a 100th bday party are a benign thing. Unless race is what motivates you. If so, then you can **** on the entire democrat party

little known fact, Lott was part of the "singing senators" barbershop quartet

 

[hoosierdoc]

Kutnupe: since I KNOW you are a man of integrity, I await you calling Obama and Biden trash for their comments regarding Robert Byrd, a grand klegal in the KKK. Or as Obama called him: "a voice of principle and reason"

I was saddened to hear this morning that the people of West Virginia have lost a true champion, the United States Senate has lost a venerable institution, and America has lost a voice of principle and reason with the passing of Robert C. Byrd.

[reactive_goalpost]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ator-robert-byrd-a-voice-principle-and-reason

[/reactive_goalpost]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe: since I KNOW you are a man of integrity, I await you calling Obama and Biden trash for his comments regarding Robert Byrd, a grand klegal in the KKK. Or as Obama called him: "a voice of principle and reason"





[reactive_goalpost]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ator-robert-byrd-a-voice-principle-and-reason

[/reactive_goalpost]

Robert Byrd was a piece of trash equal to that of Thurmond, and that's based on his long held views. I don't know, but he may have become a changed man. You want to know whom else was a piece of trash? George C. Wallace.... but here's the kicker; I admire Wallace. He's a man that I honestly think regretted his past. Now, on to the Thurmond-Byrd dynamic. Lott, placed no reflection on the errors of Thurmond's ways, in fact he praised them.... that makes Lott trash too. Now here's the difference... during Byrd's funeral he where he was eulogized by President Obama and VP Biden, Byrd's past was acknowledged publicly.

“We know there are things he said and things he did that he came to regret,” Obama said. “I remember talking about that the first time I visited with him. He said: ‘There are things I regretted in my youth; you may – you may know that.’ And I said: None of us are absent some regrets, senator. That's why we enjoy and seek the grace of God.”

So here we have the direct reference to the despicable person Byrd was is the past... at his EULOGY. No one praised him for his former hate, like was done for Thurmond, by Lott. That's pretty significant difference.

Respectable try Doc, but no dice.

Kut ('s integrity intact)

 

[Woobie]

Is this the "totality of his platform" that was superior to Truman's?

Minor/Third Party Platforms: Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party

And what are you talking about a Republican wishing a "Democrat hadn't won?" Strom Thuman WAS a Democrat...prior to the '48 election and immediately after. He stayed within the Democratic Party until the 60s. And if that's a notion one wishes to press, then why is a Republican (Lott) saying the "Sprit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform?" Obviously, Davis was a Democrat, so does that mean that Lott would've supported Davis, had he been alive? There's no way, you can keep a straight face and try to tell anyone with a lick of sense that Lott's words, concerning Thurmond and Davis, were nothing more than a opposition to federal govt overreach. It's painfully clear what is meant.

I was referring to Lott (a republican) wishing a democrat (Truman) hadn't won. That should have been obvious, just like the intent of Lott's remarks.

Furthermore, if you want to talk opposition to Federal overreach, that is a legitimate position. The Feds have screwed up a lot of things by sticking their nose into them.

Finally, you seem prepared to accept a reformed Byrd and Wallace. But Lott and Thurmond are inexorably damned. I'm glad you think your integrity is secure.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was referring to Lott (a republican) wishing a democrat (Truman) hadn't won. That should have been obvious, just like the intent of Lott's remarks.

Furthermore, if you want to talk opposition to Federal overreach, that is a legitimate position. The Feds have screwed up a lot of things by sticking their nose into them.

Finally, you seem prepared to accept a reformed Byrd and Wallace. But Lott and Thurmond are inexorably damned. I'm glad you think your integrity is secure.

I'm clear, and my response was crafted with that belief. You're saying that Lott wanted a non-Democrat to win. Well, as I stated, Thurmond WAS a Democrat....just like Truman, and stayed that way until well after the '48 election. I don't know how one can logically make the argument that Thurmond magically wasn't a ideologically a Democrat, simply because he ran third party one year, when he was a Democrat both before and after the campaign season.
Federal overreach IS a legitimate concern, when it's based on the rights of ALL citizens. Thurmond's words concerning the issue, as well as the platform during his third-party run, specifically excluded ALL Americans. How one attempts to spin coded, yet obvious, racism on the part of state governments packaged neatly in the "states rights," and "federal overreach" arguments, is attack on common sense.
As far as Thurmond, Byrd, Lott, and Wallace, I don't know if they changed. What I do know, is that Thurmond (with minor backtracks) never really renounced his former positions nor apologized for them. Lott, with the belief evidenced here, wasn't sincere in his apology as he was "forced" to do so. Byrd, I have no idea, but he least fully backtracked on his previous beliefs, publicly. Wallace, I know people who knew him, they believed he was sincerely apologetic for his past. I am more than willing to accept a person reforming themselves if they stand up and talk about the wrongness of their previous thoughts, than those who won't. My integrity is completely intact.

So, if you don't mind, let me ask you a question. Based on your views who would you have voted for during the '48 election: Truman, Dewey, or Thurmond (or any of the other candidates)?

 

[foszoe]

Henry Wallace

 

[JettaKnight]

Yeah! three pages of discussion about old white guys!

 

[indiucky]

Yeah! three pages of discussion about old white guys!

I'm an old white guy with a dash of Injun.....Does that count????

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm an old white guy with a dash of Injun.....Does that count????

More or less of a dash than Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Woobie]

I'm clear, and my response was crafted with that belief. You're saying that Lott wanted a non-Democrat to win. Well, as I stated, Thurmond WAS a Democrat....just like Truman, and stayed that way until well after the '48 election. I don't know how one can logically make the argument that Thurmond magically wasn't a ideologically a Democrat, simply because he ran third party one year, when he was a Democrat both before and after the campaign season.
Federal overreach IS a legitimate concern, when it's based on the rights of ALL citizens. Thurmond's words concerning the issue, as well as the platform during his third-party run, specifically excluded ALL Americans. How one attempts to spin coded, yet obvious, racism on the part of state governments packaged neatly in the "states rights," and "federal overreach" arguments, is attack on common sense.
As far as Thurmond, Byrd, Lott, and Wallace, I don't know if they changed. What I do know, is that Thurmond (with minor backtracks) never really renounced his former positions nor apologized for them. Lott, with the belief evidenced here, wasn't sincere in his apology as he was "forced" to do so. Byrd, I have no idea, but he least fully backtracked on his previous beliefs, publicly. Wallace, I know people who knew him, they believed he was sincerely apologetic for his past. I am more than willing to accept a person reforming themselves if they stand up and talk about the wrongness of their previous thoughts, than those who won't. My integrity is completely intact.

So, if you don't mind, let me ask you a question. Based on your views who would you have voted for during the '48 election: Truman, Dewey, or Thurmond (or any of the other candidates)?

Well I'm glad you've convinced yourself. I have never really based my opinion of someone solely on what they have done or said more than two decades in the past. It does inform me, however. Lott's remarks were just a non-issue, until the spin cycle started. We could discuss actions, but this has gone off track too long the way it is.

How would i have have voted in 1948? Highly theoretical, but I probably would have voted the same way I did in 2016.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I don't accept that, but whocares

Robert Byrd was a piece of trash equal to that of Thurmond, and that's based on his long held views. I don't know, but he may have become a changed man. You want to know whom else was a piece of trash? George C. Wallace.... but here's the kicker; I admire Wallace. He's a man that I honestly think regretted his past. Now, on to the Thurmond-Byrd dynamic. Lott, placed no reflection on the errors of Thurmond's ways, in fact he praised them.... that makes Lott trash too. Now here's the difference... during Byrd's funeral he where he was eulogized by President Obama and VP Biden, Byrd's past was acknowledged publicly.



So here we have the direct reference to the despicable person Byrd was is the past... at his EULOGY. No one praised him for his former hate, like was done for Thurmond, by Lott. That's pretty significant difference.

Respectable try Doc, but no dice.

Kut ('s integrity intact)

 

[jamil]

It might be a stretch, but using the Lott/Thurmond dynamic to call conservatives weak, should be pretty offensive to conservatives that knew the type of trash Thurmond was, and how stupid Lott was to even make the statement that he did. Those two are the hill conservatives want to die on.

"Conservatives" aren't one thing. It encompasses a set of individuals who share some common principles which are conservative in nature, but also have diverse beliefs not in common.

If you want I can treat whatever group you want to identify with as a whole part. But that would be stereotyping.