NPR spoke last week with Otis Moss III, successor to Jeremiah Wright as pastor of Barack Obama's church. Michelle Norris asked Moss if he stood by some of Wright's notorious statements, including that the United States was "culpable in the spread of HIV". (Wright's own words: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"). Moss wouldn't renounce that statement, instead he tried to justify it:
What Pastor Wright has put forth is a particular distrust that the African-American community has historically had in reference to the relationship with forward movement in our communityHuh?
Moss cited the Tuskegee experiment as one reason (and not unjustifiably, in my view) for many blacks to be suspicious of the federal government. But that's no excuse for propagating the blood libel that the government invented AIDS to commit genocide. Moss should have categorically repudiated that claim. Shame on him for not doing so.
And if U.S. Senator Obama can't convince his own pastors that the U.S. government didn't invent AIDS and is now more trustworthy on medical matters than it was with Tuskegee, how could a President Obama be expected to convince 300,000,000 Americans that the government should be trusted to run the entire health care system?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2008 03:54 PM | Email ThisAnswer (in a word): Hope!
Something we currently have not.
Posted by: Duffman on March 24, 2008 03:43 PMThe more astute observers realize that Obama's rhetoric is merely a charismatic attempt to subdue and hypnotize the electorate in to voting in a Marxist ideology. Once in place, Obama will go about promising things to one class, while taking them away from other classes. Classic Marxism, and all way we can expect from a party that puts emotion over reason, and entitlement over hard work.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2008 04:01 PMThis is a crowd who thinks things are going well in Iraq, the surge is working, our economy is not slipping into a recession, and George Bush is doing a good job.
And they chide us for "hope" and call us "delusional".
" Sen. Barack Obama has been linked to another controversial pastor, this time a declared spiritual adviser who has called white American mayors "slave masters," and referred to black preachers and politicians who "protect" the "white man" as "house n-ggers." "
" "We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," exclaimed James Meeks, an Illinois state senator and pastor of one of the largest churches in the state, in an August, 2006 sermon broadcast on a Chicago community television channel. "
" Continued Meeks in the sermon: "But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n-ggers. You got some elected officials that are house n-ggers. Rather than them try and break this up, they're gonna fight you to protect that white man." "
" With regard to his use of foul language, Meeks stated: "The N-word is not in the African-American community a bad word. It's a term of endearment. And I don't see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive." "
" Aside from his senatorial duties, Meeks is an Illinois superdelegate pledged to Obama, and also presides over Salem Baptist Church, described as the largest church in Illinois with some 20,000 members. He has served as an executive vice president for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH organization. "
" Meeks has reportedly campaigned for Obama and allowed Obama to campaign at his church during the presidential candidate's 2004 senatorial run. "
" A recent Meeks endorsement of Obama is touted on the presidential candidate's campaign website. "
" In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama described Meeks as an adviser who he seeks out for spiritual council. "
" Obama told the Sun-Times that the day after he won a 2004 senatorial primary, he stopped by Meeks' Salem Baptist Church for Wednesday-night Bible study. "
" "I know that he's a person of prayer," said Meeks of Obama. "The night after the election, he was the hottest thing going from Galesburg to Rockford. He did all the TV shows, and all the morning news, but his last stop at night was for church. He came by to say thank you, and he came by for prayer." "
" Meeks has made other controversial race remarks. "
" In 2006, Meeks informed his church during a sermon he may run for Illinois governor. He was recorded telling the mostly black congregation any "white Christian" who doesn't vote for him is a "racist." "
Unbelievable.
Hey, Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma, DUDE, you are judged by the company you keep.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 04:14 PMit's nice to see the right-wing take an interest in the activities of the various church sects, albeit selectively.
you guys have a lot of chutzpah....i'll give you that.
Posted by: dinesh on March 24, 2008 04:24 PMIt's been a long dry spell for the red's in this state, with the Crasswell and Carlson catastrophes and then the Dino carpet yanked out from under them, they are understandably bitter.
Now they are reduced to clinging to a tragic war, a national party whose brand is corruption and support of a president who clearly holds them in contempt along with the rest of us.
You can see why they're clinging to their bibles and predicting end times.
You little libs can try to change the subject but it's NOT going away. You are stuck with your own faux bible toters.... the PenisPres's bible and blue dress; Whorrabullary's bible and blue dress/vast right wing conspiracy and now, Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma and his dynamic duo of hate filled Revs singing in tune with his angry shrew wife.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 05:17 PMYou can rave and rant on sites like this til the cows come home, but no one is going to care much about this a week from now.
And you're still stuck with Dino, Pam Roach, and John McCain, who's collective intellect couldn't light a 40 watt bulb.
I'm a fiscal conservative, not a Bush fan, but it really says something when the Democrats can't beat a candidate like Bush. And why do the Democrats keep putting in players with so many skeletons they can't help but self-destruct. Bush looks downright Presidential compared to some of the lame horses the Democrats have backed.
The anti-Americanism is going to continue to hurt the left. They can't conceal their contempt for the very things that make this country great. And the average Joe will hold them to a higher standard, which the open Marxists can't and won't ever meet.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2008 06:07 PMNo wonder Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma ran his man-boobs off to the Virgin Islands! Does it strike you ODD that he wouldn't take his kids to see Grandma at the familial home in Hawaii? Of course, he did sacrifice poor white granny to the altar of political expediency. Does it strike you odd that when he was speaking of his racist white granny, he was also speaking of one that carries her genes?
You can insult whomever you choose, but dude,it ain't the GOP that is doing a fast and furious impression of the Donner Party.
yum, yum, little libs ... eat up!
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 06:08 PMDidn't it take about 12 hours for the Duffers and the Catos of the world to get kicked to the curb by those same people? How's that Iraq War that you folks were licking your chops over going? Still gonna run on that?
Step AWAAAAY from the kool aid, boys.
Posted by: hinton on March 24, 2008 06:19 PMI know you really, REALLY want this to be the central issue of the next presidential contest, but it's not. The economy (it's bad man, really bad) and the war in Iraq (worst foreign policy mistake in our nation's history) are going to quickly come to fore.
So, rag-on, Ragnar. Perhaps the rest of us can get back to policy issues and leave you and Shark to your weeping.
This is gonna be fun!
We generally don't spend much time around here actually discussing issues, we're too busy calling each other names like "progressives".
But go ahead, take a stab at it. Tell us what you would like to see happen on the transportation front.
Let me guess.... A big tax cut followed by more lanes on all the major freeways...?? Yeah..??? Did I get it right??
Not so quick there Witzy. You have to make sure that any costs associated with that road construction are exempt from sales taxes, ensure that no money will be spent on highway "art", and drop any sort of minority-run business or union favoritism in who gets the contract.
Other than that, it sounds OK to me.
I hear ya' all the way. Without the "art" and those, uh, wha'd ya' callem' "minority contracts?!?!" building new highways would be practically free (like the Iraq war).
So if we could get rid of that money losing bus system and open up the HOV lanes to anyone with a valid drivers license, everything would be hunkey dorey.
Finally, a policy analyst I can relate to.
The only way Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma's Rev problem goes away is if the democraps take away his primary win with shenanigans. If he stays the front runner, if he is the candidate, you can bet your lefty behind the rants of his wife and the 2 9so far!) wrong Rev's will be front, center, played and repeated ad infinitum.
If the Whorabullary steals the candidacy that she hasn't won with typical clintonian shenanigans we have a whole NEW debacle to mock and disparage.
In the meantime, libs are muunching on each other while McCain visits foreign leaders. Just in the last 2 days we've seen the competeing Donner Party campaigns raise charges of "the blue dress", McCarthyism, who's more patriotic and Whorrabullaries latest "experience" lies.
Really, little libs THANKS!
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 07:22 PMOne more week of you and we'll be climbing the walls.
And one more week of your hero visiting foreign leaders and making serious gaffes as to who trains whom in Iran will pretty much convince the voters that this guy is "out to lunch." Seriously, no matter what Lindsey and the gang say, the surge has failed. The "peace" we bought with billions in bribe money to the warlords is collapsing like a house of cards.
Please, PLEASE; keep on with the FOUR MORE YEARS and STAY the COURSE stuff. We love it
I don't plan on voting for McCain, Hillar, or Obama, but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 24, 2008 07:52 PMDid Whorrabullary correct her "mistake" on Bosnia or did she back-peddle?
Did Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHm correct his mistake about his typical white granny and his racist rev or did he make excues and try to justify?
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 07:54 PMThere seems to be some plausible "precursors" to the conspiracy such as a 1969 Dod request for funding of a "cancer like virus" to be used as a weapon. The conspiracists then couple an early 1970s Kissinger paper about the need to keep populations down to manageable (i.e., Western replacement rate) levels and you can see how the idea began to snowball...
Posted by: John Bailo on March 24, 2008 10:30 PMOnly if we can judge McCain by the same standard. He seems a lot happier to be buddy buddy with the "Agents of Intolerance" this time around.
The N-word is not in the African-American community a bad word. It's a term of endearment. And I don't see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive
Yeah, it's not like Jews, Italians, Irish, Puerto Rican's don't call each other derogatory names for fun when in similar company. Geez, why would African-American's not do the same thing?
Unbelievable.
Haha, your mock outrage amuses me to no end. =)
You need a scorecard over there and McCain made an understandable and corrected mistake.
Which mistake was that, the one where he voted for torture after he was against it? Seems to me a man who was tortured himself would not want that sort of thing done to others.
Or maybe it was the one where (future VP) Liberman had to lean over and tell him the difference between a Middle Eastern version of Catholics and Protestants.
If" Bama is nominated, become president,he "will" be impeached and/or a military/congressional inspired "coup"
So you think that the American military should not respect the will of the voters and overthrow the elected Govt. by force because they elected the guy you don't like?
Basically you want America to become a two-bit Banana Republic? Good to know that Truck loves America, the Constitution, and all it stands for.
Feds were reponsible for spreading the AIDS disease in the Black community.
I would not say they are wholly resposible, but the CDC under the Reagan Administration certianly did nothing to stop it. The theory goes that Reagan didn't seem to want to touch the AIDS epidemic because his "spiritual advisor" Rev. Jerry Fawell was calling it "God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals". Even Ragnar's favorite anti-Semite was is on record in 1983 saying "The poor homosexuals -- they have
declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution
(AIDS)". When your best buddies are saying it's a Gay disease, what better thing to do than ignore it.
So that's what the Reagan Administration did, they basically ignored AIDS till it started affecting famous people (like his good friend Rock Hudson) and not just gay men. The reality set in and Reagan told his Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop) to write a report. Sadly this was extremely late in the game as AIDS had already destroyed thousands of lives and had become a full blown epidemic.
Do you not realize the Hitchen's is part of the new Atheist movement that is blatantly targeting Christians and all people of faith? In Hitchen's world religion would be baned.
Then you further add insult by your additional statement. I for one, as a Christian, find it extremely offensive.
Posted by: tc on March 25, 2008 08:13 AMHere is on article by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (Shalom in the Home on TLC fame) regarding debates he has had with Hitchens and Hitchens using baseless evidence to slam religion.
Posted by: tc on March 25, 2008 09:00 AMYeah Cato like Reagan did nothing.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 09:18 AM" Sen. Barack Obama has been linked to another controversial pastor....
"We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," exclaimed James Meeks, an Illinois state senator and pastor....Continued Meeks in the sermon: "But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated...."
Rev. Meeks is actually 100% correct here. African-Americans are very ill-served by public education. The high-school drop out rate for blacks in Seattle public shools under Mayor Greg Nickels, for example is 30%+.
Slate's New York office is located at 251 W. 57th Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY, 10019-1894. To contact editors in the New York office, please call Noreen Malone at (212) 445-5330 or e-mail nyoffice@slate.com.
Slate's Washington, D.C., office is located at 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20036. To contact editors in the D.C. office, please call Chris Wilson at (202) 261-1310 or e-mail dcoffice@slate.com.
OOPS, thats a liberal site. Uh oh what''s a hapless liberal to do now?
The FACT that is was written and in a liberal site is what's relevant. Again, the Donner Party dems having yet another snack.
Please be sure to post a copy of your complaint here. We'll all be interested to dissect it.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 25, 2008 09:47 AMIt's getting to the point where you need a scorecard to keep track of the bigots.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 25, 2008 10:07 AMbigot:
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
:)
Posted by: Duffman on March 25, 2008 10:11 AM:)
Right up your street Duffie. LOL
man you stepped right into that one.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 10:18 AMAfter months, nay, years of witnessing Seattle liberals here at SP, I submit, in the spirit of PETA, that Pavlov did not need to use dogs.
In that same vein, I often wonder at the blossoming practices of Orthopedic specialists. Has anyone done a study of how knee-jerk reactions lead to more injury?
You kiddies need to get a grip... we'll keep enjoying your side-show.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 25, 2008 10:23 AMFigure it out kiddies, but keep the entertainment coming.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 25, 2008 10:26 AMBosnia: LIE
Peace in Ireland: LIE... LAUGHABLE LIE!
Chelsea caught in 9/11: LIE
Sir Edmund namesake: LIE
Travelgate: LIES, LIES AND DAMNED LIES
Duff, you need more beer? I bet your really going thur it with all this insanity. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 10:56 AM--the really big issue for our presidential race is: who is influencing the president, and what do they do to push back when they hear assertions, to test them and figure out what's the real truth?
A corollary issue is: when the candidate hears something wrong, when do they speak up? And how?
I would assert repeated statements that are not verifiable can do a lot of damage. This is a concern about Pastor Wright and Pastor Moss: they make statements that are assertions, without facts to back them up, and in some cases where there is overwhelming evidence that contradicts their statements.
===
For Candidate Obama, the big issue is: how does he decide what's true? Who is he listening to?
A second issue for him is: will he tell his "base" things they don't want to hear?
I feel really wistful because he was in a position for many years to influence his church towards improved racial relationships. Did he do anything? Did he ever speak up? This is what I wonder.
==
Specifically about AIDS:
--There are a variety of perspectives about the origins of AIDs. I looked up the Wikipedia article about the origin of AIDS. It is worth reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
Basically, there are a lot of unknowns, but there were definitely some cases before 1979.
Does anyone think the US government could pull off a conspiracy of this type? I don't think so. See the timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_AIDS
There is no mention on this page of Ronald Reagan and efforts to block or not block any of the fight against AIDS.
==
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 25, 2008 11:02 AMThanks for the info, but using Wikipeda is not a good source.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 11:12 AMAll sources have bias to some extent or another. Wikipedia is an open contribution on-line encyclipedia. Its accurracy or inaccurracy is dependent on its contributers. It proposes accurracy through the many eyes approach, just like open source software. With enough eyes contributing and correcting, the context will concentrate towards being more accurate, not less, since inaccuracies will be quickly corrected. It is called literary review. If someone abuses the system, they are not allowed to contribute. Therefore, again, it would tend to be more accurate over time, not less accurrate.
If you think it is inaccurrate, then go, register to be a contributor, and correct the entry. It is a totally democratic process.
Ragnar: Do I need to get a sarcasm or rhetorical sign to hold up for you (e.g., like on the Big Bang Theory)?
Rant all you want. Get it off your chest. Go ahead and keep calling people names. Go ahead and keep insulting people. If this is the image of your character that you want to present to people, who am I to stop you. If this is who you are, then I do feel sorry for you. On the otherhand, if you choose to act like an adult and have reasoned discussions, I would be willing to respond to valid arguments and questions.
Posted by: tc on March 25, 2008 11:42 AMProbably more appropriate to associate this phrase with the Repubs of this State, doncha think? Think about it. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 25, 2008 12:19 PM" A distinction without a difference".
Posted by: Rick D. on March 25, 2008 01:11 PMThat's good enough for me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 25, 2008 01:18 PMRichardson has been whoring himself for years. What you just woke up?
He wants VP no matter who he sucks up too.
But, for those who wish, here are some other sources from peer reviewed sources that have a great deal to lose if they present mis information.
I want to go back to the point of all this: when there are assertions made in public, should one stay silent? Lots of people on the post above are reinforcing the point: no, they want to speak out. We should have a president who will speak out too, and not just in situations where politically he has to.
1. Encyclopedia Britannica, free trial available.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9004173/AIDS#225029.toc
They list an article on the emergence of AIDS.
2. the AIDS archive.
http://www.aidsarchive.com/History.aspx
excerpts:
first documented in 1981, when The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported an abnormally large number of reports of a rare form of cancer,
...
By the time President Ronald Reagan declared AIDS "public health enemy No. 1" in April of 1987, the disease had already claimed nearly 20,000 lives in America alone.
3. Encarta
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572628_17/Africa.html#p184
excerpt:
The world's first case on record is traceable to a plasma sample from a man who died in 1959 in the Belgian Congo (present-day DRC), but clinical identification of the disease was not possible until the early 1980s. By then it had already reached epidemic proportions, with Uganda and Rwanda as the epicenter of occurrence.
Article Link: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=3657
It should be noted that the articles discusses a scientific protocol that would need to be proven to prove the overall theory. It also mentions scientific disproofs of some of the evidence that supported other theories.
It should also be noted, that if this theory turns out to be correct, then it does involve testing on a third world culture that does raise ethical issues.
Separate form the origin issue, there is the issue of whether the US and other major countries are doing enough with regards to aid and support to combat the ephidemic Aids is causing in Africa, where in many communities it has devastated the adult community.
Posted by: tc on March 25, 2008 02:12 PMWhat's next? Would it also be fair to condemn John Sidney McCain, III because his great-great-grandfather owned more than 50 slaves on his large plantation in Mississippi? Was William Alexander McCain viewed as a good "master" by his work force? Did any of his former slaves adopt the last name of "McCain" on emancipation, because they loved him as a "master"?
Or maybe one could condemn McCain for his grandfather, John Sidney McCain, who at least was alive during the younger McCain's lifetime. This Admiral McCain commanded a major portion of the Pacific Fleet during World War II, but did not allow Black sailors to serve in any roles other than cooks and janitors.
Why shouldn't we at least condemn McCain for failing to condemn and apologize for the sins of his ancestors?
For my own point of view, I don't think a person should be judged by either their religion or their ancestry. But if Obama should be judged by his religion, then it would seem appropriate to judge McCain by his ancestry.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 25, 2008 02:17 PMBut taking Richarsons at his word is really reaching. Just look at Hillary's people and their reactions to this. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 02:24 PMHow typical. Liberals are the first to call others bigots and such and yet they are the first to throw out the most disgusting racial epithets. Tell us all again why it is wrong to use Obama's middle name. Riiiiiiiight.
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 02:28 PMFor the record, I don't rant.
I do admit I mock, I ridicule and I laugh out loud at some...er, most of the inanity our little libs post. I link stories that agree with my thoughts and I post comics that lampoon the generall farce of liberalism and the oh so take themselves too serious liberals. Very few have ever made me angry, let alone angry enough to rant.
RE: tc @ 65... Go ahead and keep calling people names. Go ahead and keep insulting people.
Who? When?
Speaking the truth is not an insult. Learn the difference.
The problem with liberals is similar to the same ones with angst ridden 4yrs olds (and 19 yr olds, for that matter). They take any conversation ABOUT them as a criticism OF them: 'boohoo you hurt my feelings!'. One hopes that eventually they will indeed grow out of the narcissism.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 25, 2008 02:28 PM"Or that even Gen. Betray us says things are just not going that well."
Tel us all again how the Democrats really do respect the military? Riiiiight.
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 02:32 PMYOUR judged by the people you hang around with.
If skin heads are your friends then guess what most people will think of what type of person you are, even if say you are not.
Obama has a big problem.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 02:36 PMI see where you could buy into the fallacious idea that white people of today somehow have a debt... a debt that 600,000 or so paid during a particularly bloody Civil War... for what happened 200, 150, 100 or even 50 years ago.
But the old saying still stands: "You can pick your friends... you can pick your nose... you can even pick your friend's nose... but you can't pick your relatives... and you CAN pick your minister."
Neither McCain's father, who was implementing Navy-wide policy on race, or his grandfather, is running for president. Unlike Barry O, who certainly CAN choose who he associates with when it comes to his choices over which church to attend, John McCain could no more pick his father or grandfather then he could disown his race.
If you're going to make a comparison... try making one that applies.
You fallaciously ask "Why shouldn't we at least condemn McCain for failing to condemn and apologize for the sins of his ancestors?" The answer is this: since that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, why do you ask?
Is anyone beating on Barry because of the sins of HIS ancestors in this matter? Of course not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Barry O's "religion or ...ancestry." What it has to do with, as you as a lawyer should well know, is Barry O's continued association with an anti-American, racist bigot. That's the issue... the ONLY issue. And John McCain, who had absolutely no choice or input or control over what his grandfather or father did or did not do is totally and utterly irrelevant to that issue.
Posted by: hinton on March 25, 2008 02:55 PMOne need no more proof of leftist self-delusion than this bizarre observation.
No one that I've read has ever said that VP was the deal. But there are certainly a wide variety of other goodies he could have demanded... and since Barry O is a drowning man, there is little doubt that he would have done anything to get Richardson to at least TRY (and ultimately abysmally fail) to change the subject. Fat chance. Literally.
Posted by: hinton on March 25, 2008 03:02 PMYou are smarter than this Richard. I imagine you could not have gotten away with this sort of argument when you were in law school.
Much of the criticism of Sen. Obama with regard to Rev. Wright and now Rev. Moss is not "condemnation" of his religion. Nor is there any equivalence in Sen. Obama's choice in a mentor/minister and Sen. McCain's lack of choice in who his great-great-grandfather was.
Many people who are critical of Sen. Obama on this issue are questioning his judgment in choosing to continue his participation with a church in which the ministry appears to be exceedingly non-inclusive, is anything but being "above" race and propagates conspiracy theories that suggest the US government embraces, as a policy goal, genocide for black Americans.
Sen. Obama was clearly aware of these extremist views, and yet continues to be a member of that particular congregation - exposing himself and his children to this hate on a (presumably) regular basis.
Sen. Obama has stated - and his history seems to prove - that he his a practicing Christian. I have not seen anyone "condemn" or "judge" him based on his Christianity. I have seen many people look at what appears to be a significant inconsistency in what he says on the capaign trail are core values (belief in the inherent goodness of America, racial tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.) and what he seeks in a spiritual mentor (disdain for America, racial bigotry, intolerance, etc.)
If Sen. Obama is to be taken at face-value, he has made a very deliberate decision to look to Rev. Wright for moral guidance, and looks to him as an important contributor in shaping his value system.
It can't be emphasized enough - Sen. Obama chooses this path. There are countless churches and ministers out there who do not make division, anger and hate central to their ministries.
Sen. Obama's choice in a mentor/ministerial relationship is very different from Sen. McCain's unavoidable blood relationship to his great-great-great grandfather.
Posted by: airfoil on March 25, 2008 03:12 PMHey Richard, have you lunged across any tables at anyone recently?
Yes, I know you are correct Army M/V. The boathouses could have shut down but the problem would still remain would it not?
Even without boathouses sex (gay or not) will still happen in bedrooms/park bushes/public restrooms across the country. It was only through education and not denial of the issue that the AIDS virus has come under control in the US (still a problem but nothing like the 80's). While I'm sure you still deal with HIV positive people on a daily basis, the problem that Ryan White had has pretty much been eliminated.
Again, proper education could have been given by the CDC for prevention but it was not even studied since it was a 'Gay Disease'. Reagan ignored the problem until his good friend Rock Hudson was infected only then did he become aware of the much broader scope of AIDS.
Our county was in-appropriately re-named Martin Luther King Junior County because of our true namesake William Rufous DeVane King's early 1800s association with slavery. He was described as a "benevolent" slaveowner. Whatever that might mean.
In that regard, inspect our other namesakes.
George Washington. Almost 400 slaves at his death.
Chief Sealth. From Puget Sound to Yakima, slave raids were a much loved pastime of his and among his fellow Duwamish, your slaves were buried with you.
ALIVE!
Martin Luther King Jr. (born Michael King Jr.), it turns out may have actually been named after William Rufous DeVane King's South Carolina plantation and slave owning grandfather Michael King.
Interesting that OUR William King founded Selma, Alabama in 1830 or so. The home of the civil rights movement and location of MLK's favorite church to preach from.
I guess it would be about as much as Republicans respect Civil Rights.
Why shouldn't we at least condemn McCain for failing to condemn and apologize for the sins of his ancestors?
@81, of your family has lived in this country in the early 1800's as many have you would find a lot of them owned slaves. Heck, some of my ancestors fought for the South in the Civil War. To hold people responsible for their ancestral roots seems ridiculous because they have no control of the choices made by others at least two generations prior to their birth.
Now THERE'S a valued endorsement!
Atomic secrets lost and a state half burnt to the ground (OK, not 1/2 the state but you get the idea.)
He's just another Democrat insider clown.
True, but it does not excuse Sen. McCain's current association with the so called "Agents of Intolerance" that he spoke out quite passionately against in 2000. Rev. Wrights clips are just as harmful to the country as Rev. Magee's.
Would we be having this discussion if Gov. Romney had been the choice? You bet, up until 1978, blacks were denied priesthood, also known as "full membership," in the Mormon Church. Gov. Romey claims he cried in happiness when it was announced. Much like Sen. Obama, Gov. Romney never confronted the church leaders to change the perceived problem.
I'll speak up about my ancestors. Has anyone ever looked at the census reports that are available at Ancestry.com online or elsewhere? I did a search once and found an ancestor in 1840, in Wisconsin, who was listed as being in jail. No reason given.
Was he only there for a few weeks when the census happened to be taken? Did he actually commit a crime or was he just being held? I have no idea. But maybe I should investigate and then issue an appropriate repudiation and apology.
For example, if he beat a horse, I could make a donation to the humane society. If he got in a fight with a gun, I could contribute financial support for some organization running anger management classes.
This is not the same as having close personal contact with someone who's spewing hate, of being in a position where people look up to what that person is saying, and apparently saying nothing. I say "apparently" because I want to be open to the possibility that maybe he did say something. Just because there has not been a major press story doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I am sincerely interested in whatever leading by example Mr Obama has done.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 25, 2008 05:41 PMI think that there is an important distinction to made in the case of Sen. Obama. He has been very, very clear that this individual - Rev. Wright - has been an important spiritual and moral adviser and has helped shape the Senator's value system.
In this case, there is no abstraction layer - no greater "church" or larger denominational aspect. There is a one-to-one mentoring relationship between Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright that is entirely rooted in moral, spiritual and values growth.
Do I think Sen. McCain should embrace the endorsements of those who are involved in divisive and hateful speech? No. But the nature of the relationship between Sen McCain and Rev. Magee is entirely different than that of Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright.
Another non-sequitor from the king of fallacy.
Democrats really were for Civil Rights, that is why Democrat James KKK Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights bill which for which Democrats always pat themselves on the back.
Posted by: pbj on March 25, 2008 10:46 PMWho the hell is Magee?? You mean Warren Magneson? He used to be called Magee (and most likely a bigot too) [ED Note: Rehetorical device (c) 2008 Dinesh]
Hey Mr irrelevent, which one of those is running for president today???
Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright land transaction from his Jeremiah Wright Trust to Trinity Church.
Land is at: (Odyssey Country Club)
Kenneth Lewis sells the land to Wright and then Wright sells it to the church.A
ten million dollar mortgage and 8.2% interest rate .
Maybe he evolved, which is likely why he has a 100% NAACP rating. Too bad the GOP's racist Speaker of the House opened his mouth or no one would have dug to find his segregationist actions in the past.
Hey Mr irrelevent, which one of those is running for president today???
You saying Reagan is irrelevant? Maybe you missed the debate where the GOP candidates tried to out-Reagan-esque each other. Poppy Bush is still relevant too, he calls his son all the time according to WH staffers. Geez, could half of Dubya's staff served under Poppy Bush? It's not like Dubya's VP was Daddy's Chief of Staff or anything...oh wait!!
I wonder how long until his flag lapel pin re-emerges in an attempt to salvage the recent revelations of his anti-American associations (Ayers,Michelle O.,Wright,et al)? Shouldn't be long now, his surrogates are in full steam ahead damage control mode.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 07:19 AM"Maybe he evolved, which is likely why he has a 100% NAACP rating."
More likely he saw a huge black voting bloc, and sold out his true beliefs to keep his own sorry ass in office, and that the NAACP bought his line of crap.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 26, 2008 08:51 AMSince you can't prove any of what you just said I'd say you and your insipid comeback are up s***t creek without a paddle. =)
Depends, if McCain goes for public financing the 527 options may be limited. The McCain-Feingold Act + Public Financing (which adds a ton of restrictions) may be the biggest hindrance to McCain's campaign.
True, good point. Given the fact that Sen. McCain wants to run a campaign on the issues and not Sen. Obama's preacher he may ask them to stop.
Besides if you keep running the same crap over and over again, it's bound to backfire at some point. How many people personally believe that Sen. Obama is a racist?
Besides, those type of ad's only work on white voters...the GOP has alienated the most important voting block this year...Hispanics.
I imagine future elections the white vote will become a smaller and less important voting block in the road to the white house. Multiculturalism is the way of the future.
I'm sure he will, but that won't stop them.
it's bound to backfire at some point. How many people personally believe that Sen. Obama is a racist?
Perhaps, but not before it does damage (like the Swift Boat ads). And they don't need to make people believe Obama is a racist, just that he's got poor judgment, associating with such a person for 20 years.
Posted by: Palouse on March 26, 2008 10:46 AMThat's OK, it won't be that hard to point out all of McCain's flip flop's, especially on the torture and tax cuts.
Which judment is more sound, the one before he had the nomination and voted against a lot of stuff he now claims he's for?
Or will it be the McCain who started codling with the "Agents of Intolerance" after denouncing them 8 years prior?
It also fails to explain his flip-flop stance on torture. Why would someone who spent over five years in a torture camp want to impose that on anyone else? He was against it last year, yet he's for it now that he has secured the nomination. Talk about pandering.
McCain also doesn't have a 20-year relationship with those people you mention, so Democrats drawing attention to it will only put Wright more in the spotlight.
As for fiscal policy, this is McCain's wheel house and he will wipe the floor with the mega government that Obama is proposing.
Posted by: Palouse on March 26, 2008 11:04 AM"Since you can't prove any of what you just said I'd say you and your insipid comeback are up s***t creek without a paddle. =)"
My insipid comeback? You started it by making an insipid comment that Byrd "evolved", so now you add psychiatry to your long list of faux accomplishments. Don't make me laugh. Show me some real proof that the Kleagle has really changed his stripes. You can't because you can't get inside his head. Any jackass who willfully stands at a podium for hours on end to rant in an effort to deny civil rights to others is serious about his beliefs. Don't give me any crap about his voting record either. In my opinion, Byrd is just another racist liberal Dem looking to promote victimhood for politically expedience.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 26, 2008 11:07 AM
Look at his votes and his massive amounts of apologies. His votes seem to have evolved with his state. Besides the people of his state love him, last time he fell below 60% of the reelection vote was in 1958. There's quite difference between Byrd's West Virginia and Trent Lott's Mississipi. Maybe you forgot about the that little thing called the Mason-Dixon line.
Any jackass who willfully stands at a podium for hours on end to rant in an effort to deny civil rights to others is serious about his beliefs
Is that why Strom Thurmond holds the record? What was he filibustering again? Oh yeah, the Civil Rights act...he switched parties over that very issue when it was brought up again in '64.
Byrd is just another racist liberal Dem looking to promote victimhood for politically expedience.
Blah blah blah.
Byrd is the last member of an time and era that has long since passed.
Heck, McCain (considered old by many here) was in High School when Robert Bryd started his national political career by getting elected to the House of Representatives.
You would be an idiot to argue that the US and the World has not changed dramatically in that last 56 years.
So in your mind, if Hitler had given out knishes to some of the survivors of the Holocaust, he'd be alright with the Dem Party. Riiight.
And for Religious Roots who is now going to come on and sound offended about me daring to mention Hitler - BUZZ OFF! It's called the first amendment.
Queue RR faux offended PC rant in 3....2....1...
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 12:05 PMThat's not what I said. But if Hitler was elected by the people of a state to serve then yes.
As a US citizen I'm in no position to deny the will of the people. To be fair Robert Byrd joined the Democratic Party in 1952 and as I have said many a time the platforms of both parties have changed dramatically since then.
To be fair to RR, you compared the oratory style of a mass murder to that of Sen. Obama. You clearly have issues and your likely a closet anti-Semite if you actually believe what you posted.
To clarify my post above, Sen. Byrd was a member of a racist organization. There is no evidence to suggest that he participated in the assault/murder of any individuals of any race.
In comparison there is mountains of evidence to connect Hitler to the murder of 6 million Jews. To compare this evil man to current political figures who have done have committed no crimes is ridiculous. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech has it's limits.
Why don't you take your Aryan Nation buddies and go burn a cross in your brother-in-laws yard, see if that's free speech you bigot.
You mean like Saddam was "elected"?
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 12:38 PMMaybe you haven't heard of this thing called Democracy, where two or more people go against each other in order to secure a majority of the vote needed to hold an office and represent the people.
This is in stark contrast to both Hitler and Saddam did not practice Democracy.
Maybe you should take off that American Flag lapel pin PBJ because if you truly believe the ignorance that you post on here, you are making a mockery of that flag and all it stands for.
I only wish more WHITE people had a healthy skepticism for the efficacy and intentions of the government. (Liberals AND neocons!)
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem. I think Reagan may have said that in one of his more libertarian moments.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 26, 2008 01:30 PM1) The economy stinks, and incumbent parties tend to get thrown out when the economy turns down
2) The Iraq war is unpopular, and McCain can not come to the center on this issue.
The people want change, just as they did in 2006.
I take no joy in predicting that this is going to be a big year for the D's. Small "l" libertarians are a minority within the GOP, but danged-near nonexistent in the D Party. The GOP has destroyed itself with irresponsible spending, corruption, and an unpopular war. This will allow a really poor candidate like Obama to win in November. Look forward to socialized medicine, and it will be all the GOP's fault, for forgetting the limited government principles that it should have stood for.
The neocon RINO R's will even vote for Obama's socialized medicine, I predict.
I hear that former Senator Mike Gravel (D Alaska) has dropped out of the D nomination race and has changed his party to Libertarian. If he changes his views on health care I could even vote for him...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 26, 2008 01:47 PMReagan did say that. Isn't unregulated free market capitalism what got us into the housing and credit crisis to begin with? Should people just turn junk bonds with no finical backing into AAA Bonds? Should we all be able to participate in insider trading? Seems to me the Govt. is there for a reason.
The people want change, just as they did in 2006.
I was thinking 1984. Prior to '84 the Dem's pretty acted like the GOP did in 2000 - 2006. Yet they had a solution, the GOP came up with a neat gimmick (Contract With America) that when in office they never really followed up on. Imagine how much better off we'd be if we actually had a balanced budget amendment.
The neocon RINO R's will even vote for Obama's socialized medicine, I predict.
Depends on the outcome of the election. I'd like everyone to have the ability to choose decent health care but in reality it's just a pipe dream.
If he changes his views on health care I could even vote for him...
And abandon your boy Ron Paul...might as well stab Ron Paul in the back once for every time we've had to listen to you drone on and on about him.
Hate to be the one to tell you, but Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall.
By your reasoning then we should appoint all minorities offered up by either party.
I think you would change your tune mighty quickly if (a hypothetical) President Obama ever nominates someone like
"> Roger Gregory or Bill Richardson to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Should read: Roger Gregory or Bill Richardson to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
But the housing bubble was created by government zoning, planning, and growth management. Without the bubble, the sub-prime loans would not have been much of a problem. Then there is the inflation and excessive taxation and spending that has weakened the economy. This contributed to the sub-prime mortgage problem as well by increasing the unemployment and mortgage default rates. So the sub-prime problem, like many more of our nation's troubles, was created by government.
And now the government has stepped in to prop-up investment banks, thus signaling to all future risky lenders that they can go ahead and make risky loans to those with bad credit histories, and the government will just bail them out at the taxpayers' expense. Moral hazard causes bad risk-taking.
I'll stick with Reagan on this one.
I'm still a Ron Paul supporter, but when he loses at the GOP convention, I'll be voting for a partisan Libertarian. Gravel will be among my choices, and he will probably be the only one with any experience in Congress.
Ron Paul will be re-elected to his congressional seat. The revolution he started will continue, both inside and outside the GOP.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 26, 2008 04:35 PM"Look at his votes and his massive amounts of apologies. His votes seem to have evolved with his state. Besides the people of his state love him, last time he fell below 60% of the reelection vote was in 1958."
Still trying to psychoanalyze the Kleagle, huh Cato. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that Byrd is a slick politician who has managed to retain office in spite of himself. You know, much the same way that Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy manages to stay in office after drowning a girl with his car. Here is a Byrd quote for you:
"Rather, I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
The Kleagle has evolved, huh. Why don't you do a little research on the Kleagle's use of the word "nig*er" twice on national television in 2001.
Byrd opposed the Supreme Court nominations of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. Byrd could say he opposed Clarence Thomas because he was a Conservative but Thurgood Marshall was a Democrat favored by nearly every Democrat. Robert Byrd is the only Senator to oppose both black Supreme Court nominees. Byrd was 49 years old when he opposed Democrat Thurgood Marshall's Supreme Court Nomination. Boy, that Kleagle is just all about evolution.
If you look hard enough, you can find racists just about anywhere Cato, but the Democrat party is the only party that has willfully and wantonly embraced the tenets of slavery and oppression of blacks in this country.
Oh yeah, things have changed in the last 50 years. Democrats have learned the concept of subtlety. The lash just isn't chic anymore.
Now if that were important enough to bring up to the public, it was important enough to get paid off by Obama.
I heard both of them are buying these kinds of super delagates with campaign contributions.
You gotta love the amount of money Obama has compared to Clinton.
She will blow her and Bill's nesteg on her ego.
I can imagine the discussions in that home about now.
Yes Dear how much more would you like Dear!
Posted by: gs on March 26, 2008 05:04 PMYou liberals cannot discuss anything wthout going off on an emotional rant. And what if Obama and Hitler had the same eye color and I pointed that out? Any connections and associations other than the physical trait is in your own racist head.
"To clarify my post above, Sen. Byrd was a member of a racist organization. There is no evidence to suggest that he participated in the assault/murder of any individuals of any race."
Rally? The Klan never killed anyone? I am sure the Rev Wright would be very interested to learn that.
""The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union." - Robert Byrd in a 1946 letter to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK
- opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas.
He vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
"In comparison there is mountains of evidence to connect Hitler to the murder of 6 million Jews. To compare this evil man to current political figures who have done have committed no crimes is ridiculous. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech has it's limits."
That was not what it was, trying to prop up that old straw man makes you look even crazier.
Why don't you take your Aryan Nation buddies and go burn a cross in your brother-in-laws yard, see if that's free speech you bigot.
I don't have any Aryan Nation buddies. But I bet if you contact the local DNC they could get in touch with the Grand Kleagle and find you one.
Posted by: pbj on March 26, 2008 05:36 PMYeah, way back in 1967. You are talking about a single vote taken 41 years ago (which I'm guessing is slightly below to the median age of posters here).
Meanwhile a significantly younger Trent Lott (a different generation) was elected in 1973. His racists actions occurred in the 60's too. After the late 60's, early 70's America's stance on race shifted to being more accepting much like acceptance of homosexuals is more commonplace than it a mere 20 years ago.
Lott's controversial comments happened in 2002 (a mere 6 years ago). Let's us not forget Sen. George Allen's little racist slip up (a mere 2 years ago) that cost him his seat.
Robert Byrd is the only Senator to oppose both black Supreme Court nominees.
Wonder why, cause not many Senators get to stay in their position for 24 years (amount of time between the only two black Supreme Court Justices). Byrd is a relic from a different era of politics. Just look how out of date Zell Miller looked in 2004 when he talked at the GOP Convention. That era is gone, Byrd is the last remnant left of that in the Senate.
If (a hypothetical) Obama put up someone like Roger Gregory for the Supreme Court I bet Byrd would vote for him.
Umm, yeah Einstein, I was just showing how racist Byrd is because he hated both Marshall and Thomas because of their skin color and not their judicial views or political ideology.
At least we can both agree Justice Thomas is a much more intelligent jurist than Marshall ever was.
Thanks for further proving my point Cato.=)
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 06:25 PMSo how would explain this little doozy:
Sen. Lott who was the only senator to vote against President Bush's nomination of Roger L. Gregory to be the first black judge on the United States 4th Circut Court. I wonder why that is?
Likewise then Rep. Lott also voted against the MLK Holiday while Sen. Byrd voted in favor.
At least we can both agree Justice Thomas is a much more intelligent jurist than Marshall ever was.
I think we can agree to disagree on that. =)
Thank you for proving my point that Sen. Lott is a racist while Sen. Byrd has changed his ways. =)
Voting down 2 black SCOTUS judges (polar opposites in political and social ideology) on an individual basis and obviously as race as the deciding factor does not equate with voting against the MLK Holiday (which was signed into law by a egads!!, Republican President Reagan).
Many people at the time opposed turning it into a Holiday recognizing 1 individual, rather than a cause (Civil Rights day doesn't sound bad does it?). I thought you liberals were all about the collective??
Is MLK Jr.'s contributions more important than others who served the civil rights cause: Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, W.E.B Dubois, Jackie Robinson, Schwermer,Goodman,Chaney, and on, and on, Bueller?...Bueller?...
so, the apples and oranges thing isn't working with the Trent Lott straw man ,Cato.
I await your Plan B...
...Oh and just for the record, not only did Byrd vote against the civil rights act along with Al Gore's father...he filibusterd for 14 hours 13 minutes on the senate floor before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (who helped write and pass the bill) invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass.
A little history in context never hurt anyone Cato, don't you agree? =)
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2008 07:46 PMHere is one of Current Democratic Nominees (Hillary Clinton, New York- D) for President making bigoted remarks -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E
and a former Democratic Presidential Nomimee (Joe Biden,Delaware-D) not only making a racist stereotype, but he does it to the face of the particular ethnic group he is insulting- Stupid? or Clueless? you decide...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0
If these are the Democratic standard bearers, I guess we can only imagine what the usual "joe" Democrat says when he isn't being taped...
Once again proving that there are two sets of rules: One for Republicans and another for Democrats-
ala the book 'Animal Farm', "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxLV0bVysnk
- Mind you, that this Mr. Magoo impersonator is the chairman of the senate Appropriations committee....If you have less than 4 minutes to kill, it will give you a lifetime of insight into the working mind of one of the most influential Democratic leaders of our time.
Cato~ any rebuttal? =)
That was your argument. Romeny changed his views in the course of four years, who's to say Robert Byrd has not. Certainly not you.
which was signed into law by a egads!!, Republican President Reagan
And passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. your point being?
I thought you liberals were all about the collective??
Really, I thought the same thing about Conservatives, they just call it a cabal.
Is MLK Jr.'s contributions more important than others who served the civil rights cause
Looks to me like he was martyred for his cause. I'd say that's pretty significant. Is Regan's contributions more important than others who brought about the ideas of modern conservatism?
Oh and just for the record, not only did Byrd vote against the civil rights act along with Al Gore's father
Yeah, 44 years ago, how old were you then? Likely not old enough to vote. Lott voted against the Civil Rights act of 1990, voted against MLK day, he voted to eliminate MLK holiday commission, was the ONLY senator to vote against confirmation of a black judge (who was nominated by Dubya...so it's not his ideology)...This was all in the last 25 years.
Are we not supposedly living in a more enlightened and accepting age that is devoid of the racial divisions that polarized the 60's and 70's. Lott's voting record seems to imply he's stuck in the past, the Strom Thurmond comment was just the icing on the cake.
Now, can you show me Sen. Byrd's voting record in the last 25 years that shows a racist undertone? Nope, you can't. Thanks for playing.
..."his cause?" You mean the struggle for civil rights for all Blacks was his cause and his alone? And here I thought many lives were martyred for "the cause" including Schwermer, Chaney and Goodman down in Mississippi.
"Is Regan's contributions more important than others who brought about the ideas of modern conservatism? "
Nope, Never said they were...and as soon as they propose a Reagan Holiday rather than "President's Day", I'll be the first to oppose it. It's called consistency, you should try it.
"Now, can you show me Sen. Byrd's voting record in the last 25 years that shows a racist undertone? Nope, you can't."
You mean other than his racist vote on the Clarence Thomas SCOTUS nomination?
Byrd was born in 1917 and you want only to focus on the past 25 years? I thought our life was a reflection of our "body of Work" and you want to cherry pick Byrd's from age 66 on? Sorry Cato, Byrds filibuster of the Civil Rights act of 1964 was done when he was 47 years old...is that youthfull ignorance?
How'd you enjoy the video of your buddy Byrd by the way. I see you conveniently ignored commenting on it.
"Thanks for playing."
Agreed, you can pick up your consolation prize at the door.
Both, he became the face of Civil Rights much like Reagan has become the face of modern conservatism.
as soon as they propose a Reagan Holiday rather than "President's Day", I'll be the first to oppose it
Given your statement above would you have an objection to Christmas season being identified as say Holiday season?
Byrd was born in 1917 and you want only to focus on the past 25 years?
I want to focus on when Sen. Lott was in public office as to give some contrast to Sen. Byrd. You going to deny that Sen. Lott is a racist? He also voted against Civil Rights bills, Voting Rights Act, and was the ONLY Senator opposed the appointment of the first black man to the 4th circuit court. That's pretty consistent with Sen. Byrd's earlier votes just in a more modern era.
You mean other than his racist vote on the Clarence Thomas SCOTUS nomination?
So if Sen. Byrd is still a racist why did he vote to appoint a black man to the 4th circuit court and Sen. Lott not? 4th Circut, that's like one step below the SCOTUS.
By your reasoning Sen. Lott should support this nomination because President Bush nominated him, yet he didn't.
I thought our life was a reflection of our "body of Work"
I didn't say that. I'm saying his later body of work indicates he has changed views. While Sen. Lott's body of work is pretty consistent with his point of view.
How'd you enjoy the video of your buddy Byrd by the way.
Dunno, I can't get streaming video where I am. Oh well.
Bullshit! You are the one that was telling us all how Byrd had changed his ways. I guess you lied once again.
Posted by: pbj on March 30, 2008 11:37 PM