Hillary apologizes for racially insensitive joke
- Thread starter BTox
- Start date
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Troll said:
I'm going to excise your hyperbole down to this one sentence.
I doubt that any honorifics of Byrd will include references to "if his ideas while a Klansman were implemented" America would be a better country. That is exactly what Lott was suggesting when he made the statement he did.
Please tell me that you can see the difference between a stupidly insensative joke and seriously (I can only assume so since it was offered as part of an honoring speech) asserted suggestion that the nation would be a better place if a Segregationist party candidate were elected president in 1948.
Whether Sen. Lott's statements were simply ill conceived can't you comprehend the difference between someone making a stupid ill concieved ethnic joke and someone suggesting that the United States would have been a better place if we'd elected a segregationist president in 1948? Hell, if anything it should shake you to your core because Jeb Bush would not only be convicted of miscengination for marrying a darkie... there's no way in hell he could have been elected governor of Florida.
I can't comprehend why supposedly skeptical reactionaries continue to defend the illogical panderings of talk radio...
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Troll said:
Only if we consider his Klan past something to celebrate, which it isn't. If someone stands up and says something on the order that Bob Byrd is a great man because he is the last living former member of the Klan in the federal government, then that person will be political mud, and people will rightly loudly decry that assertion.
Byrd is open about his clan past, considering it to be his greatest shame. What he doesn't say is that given his life station at that point of time his being in the Klan was roughly as significant as his being in, say, the rotary club. He makes no excuses, simply says it was wrong and that he has struggled to make up for his errors.
If Byrd's Klan past is mentioned it likely will be to note the difference of a man then and a man now. Lott's speech was quite a bit different.
I'm sure that the Republican Hate Machine will try to distort things to make any celebration of Byrd to seem like a Klan rally, by taking things out of context and repeating them over and over knowing that most people won't take the time to find out what really happened, then apply that distortion to some mythical monolithic entity called "the left."
Or, if the Klan issue goes unremarked upon, that will be spun into some kind of "they have something to hide" story.
Quite predictable and tiresome, actually.
specious_reasons
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
Suddenly said:
Isn't the above approximately what happened with the funeral of Paul Wellstone? A 3 hour ceremony with the 10 minutes of political rhetoric made to seem like the entire content?
It's all shameful, and both parties are guilty.
specious_reasons
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
Troll said:
IIRC, I heard the audio from that ceremony. The tackiness of what Lott said was apparent. There were gasps in the audience immediately after he said it. The (probably unintended) implication of Lott's message was clear.
UnrepentantSinner said:
Yes I can understand the difference. I can also see that you answered my question with "I doubt that any honorifics of Byrd will include references to "if his ideas while a Klansman were implemented" America would be a better country. That is exactly what Lott was suggesting when he made the statement he did.. So please tell me why we can assume Lott was suggesting something that he did not reference when he spoke, but it's a condition that you would apply to Byrd? I think you're applying a double standard here. Thurmond was not a segregationist at the time of the Lott comments. Byrd is no longer a Klan member. I'm not one to focus on the bad things in one's past if they've changed, maybe Lott ain't either. That's all I'm saying.
And why would I be shaking to my core about Jeb Bush? Are you trying to infer something just because I'm wondering why a conservative got crap for what was read into by some in what he said whereas a democrat is getting less flack for a slightly more open and obvious faux pau? Personally i think neither of the comments warranted news attention. But if they're gonna get it, let it be equal.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
American said:
Unlike, for example, Repbulicans, Administration officials, O'Rielys and Limbaugh's of the world, who suggest that anyone who isn't 110% supportive of the Administration aids and abets terror or the US's enemies.
Point: what is "politically" correct, ultimately depends on whether something you think important is being attacked and assailed, and it don't matter if you are "right" or "left".
In defense of the dumb broad, I son't recall her being one of those that were wailing on Lott when he made his comment, so to be honest I don't see the need for her to be getting wailed on.
But if people are going to wail, I think it should be done without bias.
But if people are going to wail, I think it should be done without bias.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Troll said:
We wouldn't have all these problems if Strom won in 1948?
What was Strom's major policy position in that campaign?
Hint: He ran as a "Dixiecrat."
Now guess what state Lott comes from, and how many rednecks there are there to pander to...
Not to mention that Strom's presidential bid is largely a footnote seeing he spent the next 50 years in the senate. It isn't like the guy didn't do anything else in his life, and Lott was just being polite about his 15 minutes of fame.
Strom's central shame is his presidential campaign, while Byrd's is his KKK connections. Someone wistful of Strom's campaign is 1) saying they like racist policies, 2) too stupid to be allowed anyhere near a position of power or 3) some combination of 1) and 2).
Whereas Hillary mentioned an Indian in connection with a gas station. Odd that a conservative would consider an implication that someone works hard for a living as a "slur", but go figure.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
At least Byrd has lived up to his past in public and says that he was klan, why and how his views changed...Strom, witness his family values positions and his black daugher, never really did...
Suddenly said:
haha, nice try there at the end. Are you saying all gas station attendants work hard for a living, or are you just assuming that the lower the money you make the harder you obviously work? Or maybe, you're one of the few that hasn't heard all the stereotypes?
Either way don't quote me then turn around and imply that I felt she wrongfully used a slur. If she had been standing up and screaming about the Indians running the gas stations and mini-marts and the Arabs running the liquor stores so they can afford the hispanic cleaning lady and buy their kids drugs off the black kid on the corner, then I'd say she was using a slur. But as it is, I've not gone off about her saying it, just the lack of enthusiasm some have towards her comments whilst foaming at the mouth over Lott's. If you want I can include the lack of fomentation done when Byrd has made some pretty dumbassed remarks as well.
Like I said, her comments don't bug me at all. It's the immediate rush to defend her that does bug me.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
It seems mathmatically valid to state that those that earn less money have to work more to make a living. Plus, I missed the stereotype about Indian gas station attendants. The one I hear out here in the boonies is about the Indians owning and operating convienience stores (sometimes connected to gas stations, but not always). Owning and operating a convienience store is hard work, full of both financial and physical risks.Troll said:
Saying a particular ethnic group tends to engage in such capitalistic productive behaviour as being negative seems odd.
Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact what she said isn't all that much of a slur. This is my point.
If you want to try to decipher Lott's comments as being other than the 3 possibilities I list in the earlier post, please do. His comments were not a slur, rather he either was supporting segregation or he is an idiot. Hillary seemed to have just miscalculated and slurred people by referring to a stereotype that they are hardworking risk taking capitalists. I don't recall the country being torn asunder by this issue, so when comparing it to comments about segregation some proportion is needed when considering the relative idiocy of Lott's comments versus Clinton's.
It seems to me that the attackers got there first, judging from the initial post in this thread.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
mjh36 said:
Sorry Newbie... Jedi mind tricks don't work in this forum.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
UnrepentantSinner said:
This is not the reply you were looking for.
Move along...
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
I'm less defending her or her remarks than voicing my outrage over talk radio meatheads crying foul that Lott was pilloried while Hillery's getting a free ride.
Let's look at Lott's comments.
And a quote from Strom Thurmond in 1948.
Let's contrast this with Hillary's comment.
Reactionary radio has gone ape scat claiming that Lott was crucified for being conservative while Hillary's getting a free ride. Rush has several "editorials" on his website equating the two. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. We not talking apples and oranges here, we're talking apples and gypsum.
Let's look at Lott's comments.
And a quote from Strom Thurmond in 1948.
Let's contrast this with Hillary's comment.
Reactionary radio has gone ape scat claiming that Lott was crucified for being conservative while Hillary's getting a free ride. Rush has several "editorials" on his website equating the two. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. We not talking apples and oranges here, we're talking apples and gypsum.
Could you imagine Palpatine's press conferences?
"Hey, there's that @**hole from the Coruscant Daily. Whoops, mic was on? [hand wave] That was not the comment you were looking for."
"This universe would have been a better place had we elected Jar Jar to be President/evil overlord. Wait, he ran on a Amphibian Supremecist ticket? [hand wave] That was not the complinent you were looking for."
"I'd like to say that I once saw R2D2 working at a gas station in Mos Eisley... whoops, stereotype. [hand wave] I have never seen that droid before in my life."
"Hey, there's that @**hole from the Coruscant Daily. Whoops, mic was on? [hand wave] That was not the comment you were looking for."
"This universe would have been a better place had we elected Jar Jar to be President/evil overlord. Wait, he ran on a Amphibian Supremecist ticket? [hand wave] That was not the complinent you were looking for."
"I'd like to say that I once saw R2D2 working at a gas station in Mos Eisley... whoops, stereotype. [hand wave] I have never seen that droid before in my life."
KelvinG
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,387
Look, I'm no Trent Lott fan but does anyone seriously believe that when he made his comments about the country being better off he was actually saying that Stromm's racism was a good thing that would have made the USA a better place to live?
If that was his intent, then surely it was also his intent that night to commit political suicide.
Let's face it. The remark was an attempt to flatter the old geezer and nothing else.
Similarly, does anyone really think Hillary was intent on making a specifically derogatory racial remark? It might have been a dumb thing to say, but call off the bloody lynch mob! It's no wonder politicians have to walk on egg shells all the time. They aren't allowed to say anything.
If that was his intent, then surely it was also his intent that night to commit political suicide.
Let's face it. The remark was an attempt to flatter the old geezer and nothing else.
Similarly, does anyone really think Hillary was intent on making a specifically derogatory racial remark? It might have been a dumb thing to say, but call off the bloody lynch mob! It's no wonder politicians have to walk on egg shells all the time. They aren't allowed to say anything.