RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Are they being too hard on Lott?(38 posts)

Are they being too hard on Lott?ColnagoFE
Dec 12, 2002 10:38 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/index.html

Looks like Bush is making an example of him. I mean the guy never said specifically he was for segregation...even though it could easily be implied. I'm guessing he was just speaking without thinking here--not that that is neccesarily a good trait for a politician. If you had to throw out all the closet racists in the Senate I'm guessing Lott wouldn't be the only one. He was just unwise enough to let it slip.
here's hoping the rest of the career politicians joins him :-)kenyee
Dec 12, 2002 10:45 AM
I don't think the founders ever meant for "politician" to become a career job. The longer they stay, the more corrupt they seem to become and the more they lose touch w/ the peons like us...

From MA, where the career politicians voted themselves a 50% pay raise last year at midnight when no one was watching...
Each of us has paid the price for speaking without thinking. nmonespeed
Dec 12, 2002 10:50 AM
Nomohair_chair
Dec 12, 2002 10:53 AM
Thurmond ran his campaign on a single issue: segregation. So what does it mean if you wish he won?

Politicians, especially conservatives, love to talk about making people accountable for what they say or do. Is it just talk, or does accountability mean something?
yes and notarwheel
Dec 12, 2002 11:01 AM
I would like to give Lott the benefit of the doubt and take his word that it was just a humorous remark, not meant to imply support for Strom Thurmond's past racist views. However, living in the South, it is very common for politicians to speak in code and say things meant to let the good ol' boys know where they stand on issues without coming right out and saying it. Jesse Helms was a master at this sort of tactic. When he ran for Senator against Harvey Gannt, the black former mayor of Charlotte, Helms ran some TV ads that were very subtle but clearly meant to play the race card. When he ran against former Gov. Jim Hunt, Helms paid for ads that implied Hunt was gay.

Anyway, in context, I think the Lott statements were just not very well thought out, but not meant to endorse segregation. But part of me is very skeptical because the Republican Party in the South has really tried to play the race issue in a sneaky but effective way.
HEY .....last time i looked this was a cycling forumSpirito
Dec 12, 2002 11:22 AM
politics is in each of our days far too much as it is - we dont need more of it here.

try non-cycling discusssions

ciao
sorry...thought I posted this to the non-cycling forum (nm)ColnagoFE
Dec 12, 2002 11:44 AM
agreed ... sorry (nm)tarwheel
Dec 12, 2002 11:47 AM
Why is it always white people who try to downplay racsim?eschelon
Dec 12, 2002 11:27 AM
Lott, the media, other politicians claim that it was a "bad choice of words"...no shit. "If Strom was elected president, we wouldn't have had all these problems"...problems? Oh yeah, problems like the "niggers" or "boys" or whatever derogatory term racists have come up with through the years demanding the right to vote, not be lynched, mutilated, murdered, raped, wanting to attend good schools, get higher education, have the same opportunity as anyone else...Problems that Lott was speaking of.

I don't understand the whole "I chose my words badly"...I mean is there a better way for someone to say that this country would've been better off yesterday and today to have had a racist/segregationist for a president? I mean, can someone actually say "if we smartly had elected a white racist/segregationist president years back, then these "niggers" would'nt have caused all these 'problems' (see above for definition of problems)?" Because this is essentially what Lott said on National TV...and everyone at Strom's party and those who applaused at Lotts empassioned speech are a bunch of KKK spooks in expensive business suits.

And the "black" government offcials who happen to be Republicans all over this country who "went out of their way" to be quoted in the web site news sources to excuse Lott's "bad choice of words" are a bunch of sell-out Uncle Toms who let their future political gains in their respective party hierarchy (Republican) smother the outrage of outright biggotry and racism.
Kind ofSteveS
Dec 12, 2002 11:51 AM
This kind of reminds me of when Jesse Jackson made some offhand comment about visiting "Hymie-town." Certainly not a racial slur to an anti-Semitic bigot and buddy of Louis Farrakhan, but somewhat of a big deal to Jews who remember 7 million sent to the gas chambers in WWII. And the people who forced the Jews into the chambers, would have been great fans of the Reverend's choice of words and sentiments. Jackson's response? "The Lord isn't finished with me yet." That was his entire "apology."

Guess he still is "unfinished" as in his revered position as religious leader rapping for the responsibilites of fatherhood, he produces an out of wedlock child. No outrage expressed by his consituents at his adultery or hypocrisy.

So, who was it who disregarded and excused these actions with the most minimal of admonishment?

Bigotry and prejudice exists in all groups. Political correctness tries to say it only exists in one group only.

P.S. I prefer lugs to tig welded anyday.
AMEN! nmStickers
Dec 14, 2002 10:04 AM
Yes and NoAlpedhuez55
Dec 12, 2002 11:29 AM
THere is a double standard in the way the media treats democrats and republicans. When Lott makes a statement that is taken out of context at a lighthearted tribute, it becomes a national media event. When Bill Clinton plays golf at a Whites only country club in Arkansas during his presidency, it does not matter. Even Jessie Jackson, who called New York City Hymie-town, has been all over the networks acting angry. Give mem a break!!!

I am a Conservative Republican, and I would prefer Lott step down from his ledership role in the senate. I think you can question his ability to lead after making this type of statement. I do not think he is a racist, hipersonal s history dating back to college states otherwise. I think he is ignorant and will be used as an easy target by the liberal media. THe republicans have started to make some progress with minority voters. We do not need a redneck screwing it up.

Mike Y.
pulllease ...bianchi boy
Dec 12, 2002 8:14 PM
We all know how the media, Rush Limbagh and the Republican Party treated Bill Clinton with kid gloves. Sure. How come every time there is something negative in the news about Republicans, they scream media bias? But Rush Limbagh and legions of other conservatives can blather incessantly about Clinton, liberals, etc., and that is ignored. One of the biggest PR jobs I have ever seen is the claim by conservatives that the media favors liberals. Do me a favor before you make these claims. Find some academic publication that studies journalism and does "content analyses" on media bias. You'll find that the so-called media bias is a figment of thin-skinned conservatives' imaginations. (In case you hadn't guessed, I went to J-school and worked as a reporter for 10 years. There are many, many conservatives journalists. Just read the op/ed pages of any newspaper. Or watch TV shows on FOX news, CNBC, Bill Reilly, etc.)
Media BiasAlpedhuez55
Dec 13, 2002 7:06 AM
When I was talking about liberal media, I mean the big three, ABC, CBS & NBC plus CNN. These news organizations are claiming to be neutral and that they report news. This is not the case though.

Look at Dan Rather, he is a democrtatic fundraiser and also refused to report on the Shaudra Levy affair saying it was not news worthy. Would that be the case if Condit were a republican? Peter Jennings is always giving speaches on left leaning causes. CNN is probably the worst of them all. I think some of the things they did in the Gulf War were bordering on treason.

Fox News really only became prominent in the last 2 or 3 years and was not very active until the after the impeachment. In my poinion, it was long overdue.

Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist or member of the mainstream media so to speak. He is a talk show host. There is a difference. He is an entertainer who tried to point out absurdity in politics and the media. He used to be a great humorist, but I think the show has gone down hill over the last several years since he stopped using humor as much. He gives opinons, not news.

Op-ed pages are liberal, moderate or conservative depending on the owners. I feel opinions in nespapers should be there not the reporting. While they are both journalists, there is a difference between a reorter and a colunist. A colunist spouts his opininon, a reporter is supposed to report the news. Too many times you see a newspaper editorialize in a news story by hiding or ignoring part of the story. THis type of reporting is where the media bias comes into play. A good example was when I think it eas either Time or Newsweek and NBC was going to hide the story on Monica Lewinsky until Matt Drudge broke the story.

It is easy to demonize Rush Limbaiugh or Bill O'Reilly, they are both biased. But they are payed to give their opinion(and for your information, both O'Reilly & Limbaugh have chastised Lott for his ignorant statements). Newsmen like Brokaw, Rather et al are supposed to report the news is a different situation. I don't have a problem if Rather hosts a fundraise for his daughter in Texas. I have a problem if decides not to report on something that is newsworthy because it makes a Democrat look bad then he claims to be objective.

Bianchi Boy, it is funny how your response failed to address the fact that Clinton playing whites only clubs while he was President and the media completely ignored this. Igonoring facts to support a cause or party is exactly what I was pointing out. Sounds like you would make a fine addition to the newsroom at CNN. THank you for proving my point for me.

Mike Y.
re: golf. No one in the world believes that Bill Clinton is abill
Dec 13, 2002 7:33 AM
racist. That's the difference. It has always been easy to believe that Trent Lott is a racist. Just no one wanted it shoved in their face quite this blatantly. For a non-racist to go to an all-white club is not big news. For a supposedly former racist who has attained a powerful leadership position only to repeat his vows is.
I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the man who has a reputation for getting up early may sleep until noon.
Get your facts rightAlpedhuez55
Dec 13, 2002 9:20 AM
So Bill, would it be OK for Clinton to go to a KKK Rally as well since he is not a Racist? His playing there makes a statement. If one supports someting pubically, such as affirmative action, it is one thing. One's actions can show an insight to their true personality. You do not know what Clinton thinks, only one how he voted on things to try to get reelected. Going to a whites only country club sends the wrong message. It is not something a president should do and the media should have called him on it.

I am not defending Lott. If you read my original post, it states that I do not want him in a leadership position. I do not want him as majority leader. As for him leaving the senate, that is between him and the voters in Mississippi.

He has plenty of votes and a history in college in the 60s that says he is not a racist. He has votes that some people try to perceive as racist such as votes against affirmative action. The mainstream media considers a vote against Affimative Action a racist act. That is one of the problems in the media.

Most people, including Democrats, are not calling him a racist, they just think he made some uncalled for comments. Just like Clinton did so with his actions.

Mike Y.
I thought that Lott's history in college was that he defendedbill
Dec 13, 2002 9:58 AM
his fraternity's all-white policy? Could be wrong about that, but that's what I understood. Educate me, if you say I have the facts wrong.
My point was that Clinton's gaffe looked like an exception and was therefore excused. Lott's doesn't. Sorry, but it doesn't. It looks like the boy's slip is showing.
And I've never heard any serious contention that Clinton was a closet racist. Whatever you want to say about Clinton's pandering, and it surely happened, most black folks consider Clinton the first (honorary) black president. They identify strongly with him. You would be hard-pressed to find any other exceptions to Clinton's record on race.
Same can't be said for Lott.
Republicans can argue all they want about how the Democrats are the real racists because of the tyranny of low expectations and all that, but people (other than Republicans) don't buy it. Heck, even J.C. Watts is finding something better to do. There might even be some force to that statement as an argument, except that nearly all the racists ended up as Republicans. I'm not saying that every racist is a Republican or that every Republican is a racist, but there sure are a lot that are.
I thought that Lott's history in college was that he defendedAlpedhuez55
Dec 13, 2002 11:14 AM
When he was in college in the 60's, he was recognized by the college as helping to prevent violence during riots when they were desegregating his school. There are reports that all he did was stop his fraternity brothers from getting involved. But even if just that, he did get involved. The 60's were a very different time in our country. He is by no means Martin Luther King, but Lott is not David Duke Either.

The country club was not Clinton's only gaffe. THey were just not reported. Look at his behavior at Ron Brown's Funeral, where he was laughing with friends then started to cry once the cameras were on him. There were the anti-Italian comments he made about Mario Cuomo when he taped talking to Gennifer Flowers. One time when he was vacationing in Massachusetts, her referred to Vernon Jordan as his "boy". All of these can be considered biggoted or insensitive. He only openned the office in Harlem after the outrage over the excessive rent he wanted us to pay for his first choice in Manhattan. In my opinion, Clinton is both biggotted and sexist judging from both statements and actions. He was just a very talented panderer and used the willing media to his best advantage.

My beef is with the Media. Republicans and Democrats are held to different standards. I have no problem with them calling Lott out for his mistake. He deserves the critisism. It just would have been nice to see them force Clinton to take a stand against that white's only club and to call the black democrats calling Colin Powell and Condie Rice "Uncle Toms" called to task.

There are plenty of closet-racists in the Democratic Party as well, especially in Boston. I am disgusted by my own parents who are both life long democrats. They make some pretty bigotted statements. I stopped talking to them for a long time after some comments they made to my hispanic ex-fiance.

All we can hope is that racism will not be as big a problem in the next generation. Time will get rid of dinasours like Trent Lott, Strom Thurmon, Jessie Jackson & Al Sharpton. Lets hope the next generation of leaders will judge policies by their merits and not try to make non race related fiscal issues, into racial issues.

Mike Y.
Mike, you make some good points, but trying to turn Clinton intobill
Dec 13, 2002 11:53 AM
a racist isn't one of them. By all accounts, Vernon Jordan is one of Clinton's closest friends and has been for years. I call my friends my "boys," too. By all accounts, Ron Brown was Clinton's close and real friend, as well -- he was roundly criticized for picking his friend and supporting Brown through Brown's arguably insupportable behavior. I found comfort in a few laughs at my sister-in-law's funeral last summer, too; it's what people do. I don't believe for a minute Clinton laughed because he could care less because Brown was black.
Nah, sorry, my friend. Racism is the soft underbelly of what it means to be a Republican. Your folks are probably lifelong Democrats who vote Democratic locally but who haven't voted for a Democratic for President since Carter, maybe since Humphrey (I'm going out on a limb, here, I realize). I'm not saying that Republicans have an exclusive, but, you've got to admit, all the best racists are Republican.
Are Democrats and Republicans held to different standards? Maybe, but it's more about context, as I said originally, than about media bias. I think that the media, and not just the conservative entertainment press, either, was merciless on Clinton, much of it deserved, but certainly not all.
Mike, you make some good points, but trying to turn Clinton intoAlpedhuez55
Dec 13, 2002 12:58 PM
I am glad we can agree on a few points there. I am glad you can tell the difference between the "Journalists" and the "Conservative Entertainment Press". Though even Clinton praised Limbaugh as a "Great American" when he agreed with him on NAFTA. Politics makes strange bed fellows.

Racism goes both ways, democrat and republican. Saying the best racists are Republican is wrong. There are extremists on both sides. The Mass Democratic Party has a lot people who are very bigg "as long as they are on in my neighborhood" racists. I think the Best Racist title goes to Jessie Jackson for shaking down companies and using the money to help pay for his bastard child. THis sounds like racketering to me.

My mother did not vote for Clinton the second time around. My 74 year old father voted for a republican for Governor in Massachusetts this year. He told me it was the first time in his life he ever voted for a republican in an election.

I think Clinton was a man not worthy of the office. He was sexist and biggotted. I do not have as huge problem with his politics. It is more with his behavior. Most the abuse he took from conservatives like Limbaugh was well deserved. Some was not. THe kid gloves he got from the media was was just as biased as the attacks though.

Mike Y.
No. Not hard enough.outofthesaddle
Dec 12, 2002 11:39 AM
There is no place in the leadership of Amercia for the views expressed by Lott in his most recent comments, in his earlier comments in support of Thurmond in 1980 or in his "friend of the court" brief in support of a Bob Jones University's policy prohibiting interracial dating. I guess his "mistake" for which he is sorry is that he let people know he's a biggot. One of the bright spots following the Sept. 11 attacks was that people seemed to really get behind the idea that what unites us as a nation is greater than what divides us. Apparently Senator Lott doesn't share that view.
No. And his apologies make it worse...PdxMark
Dec 12, 2002 11:42 AM
He didn't stop at saying he supported Strom, he added that we wouldn't have had "all these troubles." The meaning is clear. What "troubles" was he referring to? Until he has a reasonable explanation for that, the one obvious meaning must stand.

His apologies seem to be an attempt to ride a ludicrous line. Denying that he MEANT anything wrong, he hopes to apologize just for his words. I hope he stays. A highly visible symbol of GOP view on race is a good thing for the country.
"just thinking without speaking here" -- isn't that the wholebill
Dec 12, 2002 11:53 AM
problem? When Lott speaks without thinking, when he speaks without censuring his thoughts, he comes up with a gem like that. Others, one might imagine, if given the same opportunity to speak without thinking, might have come up with their own gems, but not that one. I have no doubt that the guy mostly meant it and that he's sorry mostly that his slip is showing, so to speak.
I guess what's surprising to me is that people are surprised by this. Can you BE a Southern conservative and not be racist? Can you be a conservative and not be at least an apologist for racism? I think time's are changing some, but it's not so very long ago that all you had to do is say "states rights" and people know exactly what you meant.
Before I get too lathered up here, I'm not trying to give liberals a by. There is much racism inherent in many liberal policies and thoughts as well. People are people -- if not being a racist means to avoid having race color your thoughts, words, or actions in any fashion, it's pretty hard not to be racist.
oops. "just speaking without thinking here"bill
Dec 12, 2002 12:05 PM
Roast him. Burn a cross, thats legal in VA now, ain't it? NMSpunout
Dec 12, 2002 12:14 PM
Just the latest in long line of racist commentssidley
Dec 12, 2002 12:21 PM
I can't fault anyone for being a racist - including my racist future in laws who wont talk to my fiance because I'm half black. If I worried about other people's stupidy, I would never have time to bike ride.

However, what irks me about Lott is not that he is a racist but that he is a two faced and spineless. As you all might have read by now, Lott has come out in favor of segregationists several times in his career. Lott also made a speech during the Bush campaign to group called The Sons of the Confederacy (or something like that) stating that the Republican Party embodies the same principles as the Confederates.

I would respect Lott if he just came out and admitted his bias instead of praising Strom and then issuing apologies. Moreover, everyone knows that immigrants are really the cause of all of our problems.
Just the latest in long line of racist commentspaper warrior
Dec 12, 2002 1:19 PM
I reckon ol' Jeff Davis and ol' Strom Thurmond was right- this country is a lott better of because of States Rights. Think about it. If Wyoming and other flyover "red states" were as socialistic as California or New York nobody would be there.
My vote: He should step down from Majority Leader.fbg111
Dec 12, 2002 3:14 PM
Whatever he meant is irrelevant. What he said, combined with the fact that he has said it before and has a segregationalist history, nails his coffin shut.

Bush was right on when he said that for hundreds of years, America was untrue to its founding ideals. Good for him for that, and for taking Lott to task.
Democrats can be such hypocrites... It is all politics...jose_Tex_mex
Dec 15, 2002 8:50 PM
Whatever about Lott's comment, far be it from me to support him. However, what I abso - toot -ly dislike about the Democratic response is the ultimate hypocrisy therein. Please allow me to explain...

Didn't Clinton award the Medal of Freedom to William Fulbright, who for decades opposed all civil-rights legislation because he "doubted its efficacy."

How about Jesse Jackson, hymietown, and spitting in the food of white people? Let's not even start about Sharpton.

Finally, wasn't Al Gore's father a segregationist? Didn't Gore's father and Fullbright write to oppose the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, explaining why segregation was needed?

Sorry Democrats, if you are going to lead do so by example.
Hmm. That's odd. All the headlines are about thebill
Dec 16, 2002 11:03 AM
REPUBLICANS who are calling for Lott's head. You didn't hear that much from the Democrats about this at first, and you still don't. As a matter of fact, I believe that the first big Democrats to weigh in were largely in support of Lott. There is a piece in the Washington Post this morning about how the big media outlets ignored it, how the politicians ignored it, and how it was the web-based independent outlets who gave the story legs.
So much for the liberal media/Democrats conspiracy theory.
Find another soapbox, my friend. Bad example, here.
I also think that you are overlooking that Strom's political legacy is in far better shape than Trent's is at this point. You can point to where Strom changed his tune, publicly at least. Believing in the redemption of folks who have seen the light is a long-standing tradition. The trouble with Lott is that he revealed that he never really has changed his thinking. He validated everyone's worst fears about what it means to be a Republican, which is why the Republicans are so ticked.
Nope, can't blame the Democrats here. Lott stepped on his dick all by himself.
and it will be REPUBLICANS who bury him. nmbill
Dec 16, 2002 11:04 AM
not sure what your point is...jose_Tex_mex
Dec 16, 2002 1:16 PM
Segregation is wrong IMHO - let us weed out those politicians with a legacy as such.

Agree? Then don't make excuses for Clinton, Gore, Sharpton, and Jackson. Do you believe they should have been ousted? If not why not?

Who said anything about the "liberal media/Democrats conspiracy theory?"

Also, note the GOP will indeed oust Lott. If this were a Demo there would be a bunch of excuses made and apology accepted. Again, lead by example Demo's.

I guess if you cannot get elected the next best thing is to get someone else unelected.
I'm no longer sure what your point is. You say that thirtybill
Dec 16, 2002 1:49 PM
years ago Senator Fullbright opposed Civil Rights legislation, and, regardless of what happened in between, Clinton is a hypocrite, which makes him no better than Lott. Or something like that. I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong about Fullbright, but I am saying that it's not hypocritical to laude someone's exemplary achievements if they have left behind a legacy that at one point was more than accepted wisdom in certain circles -- it was damn near a religion -- and have made up for it since then. I point out that Strom is actually one of those people, as is/was George Wallace.
As for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, well, they may have constituencies but they are hardly standard bearers for the Democratic party. And, if I may say so, both have rehabilitated themselves quite a bit from the most racist take on their roles. They may serve as provocateurs angling more militantly than some may like in a direction that everyone agrees we should go, if not necessarily exactly on their terms, but they correctly escape the scrutiny that correctly falls on the friggin MAJORITY LEADER, for heavens sake. What are you thinking, man?
If the best you can come up with is nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah, we may have Lott but you have Jesse and Al, well, that's a sorry state of affairs for Lott, isn't it?
I'm not saying that Lott should be blasted for what he was thirty years ago. I'm not even saying that Lott necessarily should be blasted for the company he keeps now (although the big fat difference is that bringing people into the fold -- e.g., black folks -- necessarily involves overlooking some behavior that is properly viewed differently from arguably the same sort of behavior from people who committed their sins trying to keep people OUT of the fold; let's not forget that Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin were nasty, terrorist revolutionaries in their time). Lott shouldn't be hung, he just should be hung out to dry as having lost any moral authority.
Here comes the thought police...jose_Tex_mex
Dec 16, 2002 5:14 PM
I truly have no idea what you are arguing, why you are arguing, or where you glean the information you do.

But then again, you are the thought police and can read my mind - just like you can Lott's. He obviously did not say anything racist, he did not do anything racist (never voting against civil rights), so we are left with what you believe he was thinking. Then again he does have that Southern accent - another inference of guilt.

This is unlike Clinton whose actions honored a segregationist and Sharpton/Jesse whose words have professed bigotry.

Honestly, unless you can make your point and why you took issue in the first place you really just seem like you're trolling.

Best of Luck
I don't know whether you are being deliberately dense . . .bill
Dec 17, 2002 7:51 AM
I am not the thought police. Thought police try to control what others think. I won't try to control it, but we should pick our leaders at least in part on what they think, and I will try to figure out what others mean by what they say. If you don't believe that what Lott said is a racist comment by a racist, as opposed to his lame grab for a lifeline by saying, for the first time last night on BET, that Strom's segregationist platform in 1948 was the furthest thing from his mind, well, I just don't know what to say to that. The evidence is there in front of you. If you don't see it, well, you're about the only one.
The guy never has said or done anything inconsistent with his being a racist, for sure, with plenty of opportunity to say or do otherwise, and too much of what he has said and done is racist. I don't where you are coming from. You have to be blind. What he said last week he first said publicly in 1980 (something I hadn't heard until this). He was a nobody then, just another Southern racist Republican, big deal, no news there, so no one cared. But then, last night, he comes out and says that he was wrong for all those years of opposing affirmative action and opposing honoring Martin Luther King and opposing civil rights legislation, and it's all too pathetic for words. He's far more willing to say that he's been a racist than you are, my friend. I'm flabbergasted.
Your point seems to be that Lott isn't a racist, despite what he said, but Democrats are hypocrites because they're racist, too. Not exactly a logical argument; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
One more time. Your shot at Democrats is gratuitous, because, not only do you have to overlook an awful lot of history to find racists in the current Democratic party that can hold a candle to the racists of the Republican party, but it isn't Democrats who are calling for Lott's head. It's REPUBLICANS. You are to the right of the White House, my friend, which is saying a lot. So to speak.
Look, I'm never going to convince you. You don't want to be convinced. Despite your support, however, Lott will not return to the Majority Leader spot. He's been damned with faint praise by the people that should have been his staunchest supporters, and the White House is hanging him out to dry completely. The truth is, his head on a plate is far more valuable right now to the Republicans than his leadership ever would be. It ain't about Democratic hypocracy; it ain't about Democrats at all.
If you think that this is a meaningless troll, well, I'm sorry that I've wasted your time and mine.
Are you logged in under your Troll name?jose_Tex_mex
Dec 17, 2002 2:21 PM
You sound like a Troll. Pardon me if I am wrong.

At best case you are logged in under your Troll name so as to preserve your original pristine username.

I believe you are a Troll as I don't remember seeing any postings other than your most recent.

Can anyone vouch for Bill or is he a Troll?

If you are not a Troll, sorry. However, I have gone past my maximum thread reply and you continually attribute to me quotes which I never made. If you are not a Troll, take one of my statements and show me where you disagree.

Otherwise...

Good Bye
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I have notbill
Dec 17, 2002 3:11 PM
posted on this board before, um, yesterday, I think, although I am a frequent, sometimes-more-than-others poster on the General board and have been for several years. I am not, to my knowledge, a troll, although pejoratives are always subjective, aren't they? I may fit your definition, I don't know. I can say that I never have posted under a different name.
I don't believe that I have misconstrued what you were trying to say, although I suppose that I may have. What possibly has created the problem here is that I have been calling you on what I see as your premises and implications rather than on your direct quotes. If this is confusing to you, I'm sorry. I'll try to be less subtle next time; subtlety doesn't always work very well in cyber-space.
I realize how backhanded this is, but I don't waste my time with total ninnies, and I didn't see you that way. You seemed to be saying things maybe without realizing all the implications of what you were saying, as do most of us who come at a problem from a point of view. Once those implications were pointed out, I wanted to hear what you had to say, because maybe I am wrong. You haven't said much else other than to say you were misunderstood. I don't see how that could be, but so be it.
I ride a Pegoretti Marcelo, a Douglas scandium frame, and a Litespeed. I've done a little racing and intend to do more, despite my racing age, which will be 45 next season. You?
Back Againjose_Tex_mex
Dec 20, 2002 9:32 AM
Hey Bill,
Back again, work is verrry busy.

Anyhow, my problem is with Democrats who throw rocks at Lott who themselves live in glass houses.

Lott - did not say anything racist. He is being blasted for what we think he thinks.

Clinton - honored a segregationist. Also, didn't he have confederate flag day? For all those that "know" all southerns and Rep's are racists, I assume this would be considered a racist symbol.

Gore - Daddy was a big time segregationist and was against the civil rights bill.

Sharpton and Jackson - do I even need to go in to the numerous quotes and actions on their behalf?

It is just my humble opinion that when you blast someone for what you think they were thinking, you yourself should not have actions and comments that are racist themselves.

BTW - I have an OCLV 5500, a GT Lotto, GT Zaskar, and a few others. Don't do much racing any more. However, I do get to do a lot of mountain biking in the winter. As for age, I ride with a 45 and 55 year old who beat me down regularly - it is really amazing, inspiring, and something to look forward to.

Peace