« Smallpox part 2 |
| prepare ye the way of the end times »
Hammer. Nail. Coffin.
How many nails does it take to close a coffin, anyhow?
Posted by on December 12, 2002 07:00 PM | Permalink
I'm sure you could raffle off opportunities to hammer in the nails. Probably could raise quite a bit of money that way too. Bush might even buy a raffle ticket. Or 10.
December 12, 2002 07:12 PM
In Judasim, you're supposed to be buried in a plain wooden box (usually pine) with only two nails (one on each side) holding the lid on.
So, um, two.
December 12, 2002 07:22 PM
Does Byrd have to step down for the white nigger comments he made?
Why is it that republicans are nailed to the cross for the occasional racist themed comment, but democrats get a free pass on their frequent racist remarks?
Why is it that some black democrats can slam the white man all they want and no one ever takes them to task? They never have to step down? The mainstream press ignores their racist remarks.
I'm not defending Lott and I agree he needs to go. I'm just pointing out the double-standard.
December 12, 2002 10:17 PM
Thank you, Brent.
As many people have pointed out - Lott needs to be replaced. Not because he's a racist, but because his idiotic comments display his problems that have existed all along - namely, his ineptness and his inability to lead.
Too bad they couldn't have done it before he went around saying dumb things.
December 12, 2002 10:45 PM
Whoah. Suprising opinion... Shocked!
Lil' Vicious |
December 12, 2002 11:49 PM
Let's face it, Thurmond is a Conservative icon. He is the Paul Wellstone of the Right, embodying everything the Party stands for. He is a living, breathing incarnation of the Republican platform. Are we really going to sit here and say, "You know, Lott may be the Senate Majority Leader, but he shouldn't promote his party. He should really be overjoyed when he thinks back about Republican losses. And he certainly shouldn't believe that his party could have done better than elected Democrats!"?
Let's see, who was President after 1948? Oh yes, Harry S. Truman, the man who had, in 1945, given up U.S. national soveriegnty to the U.N. in 1945. Oh yeah, America is stronger now because we bow to the collective will of a band of psychotic, America-hating despots.
Truman's 21 Points made America the world's most pathetic Socialist State.
Truman threw us into the Korean War and then refused to allow us to win.
Trent Lott is right: America may be better off today if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948.
This is a non-issue that the Terrorcrats are intentionally viewing in a context that was never intended. It's an easy poke in the eye and they just can't let it go. They're desperate for something, anything to make themselves look better after their "we hate America" platform lost them the last round of elections. This wasn't a false step by Lott, it's pure, hate-filled, venomous pettiness by the Terrrocrats.
December 13, 2002 01:00 AM
" Not because he's a racist, but because his idiotic comments display his problems that have existed all along - namely, his ineptness and his inability to lead."
Byrd's "White Nigger" comments on Fox News in 2001 aren't "idiotic comments"?
No one called for his resignation?
A lot of politicians are inept and unable to lead. Do they have to step down?
I think Lott and Byrd are both racist.
But Lott pales in comparison to KKK Byrd. Check this out...
"I vow 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." - Senator Robert Byrd (D)
December 13, 2002 02:03 AM
My issue with Lott is this:
If the man is not able to think before he speaks he is an idiot and has no business being majority leader.
December 13, 2002 05:55 AM
I thought Byrd should've had his ass kicked back when he made his infamous comment myself, but - c'mon guys - if moral equivalency isn't a legit rhetorical ploy for liberals, why is it one for conservatives? A stupid offensive comment is a stupid offensive comment, no matter who makes it - and when you're in a job that calls for a certain deftness in public speaking, you need to remain conscious of the implications of what you say in public.
Bill Sherman |
December 13, 2002 07:03 AM
andrew sullivan has posted a worst case scenario.
A scenario that follows Lotts resignation
Lott goes, leaving the senate 49-49-2, with 1 of those 'I' caucussing with the democrats...
and whammo...we're back to a dem controlled Senate.
Want that? I don't
I don't even want the 50-49-1 post inaugural numbers. Too close for comfort--McCain could make his big switch then--the one that Jeffords cheated him of last time.
I think I've made it plain that I don't like this situation--and even though I REALLY don't like Lott I don't like the way this is going.
It's always republicans that resign, or apologise, or accept censure. Democrats run for office after being convicted. Republicans think their apologies/resignations/accepting punishment will serve to show their integrity--but all it does is become fodder to be used in the next Democrat smear campaign.
Apologies and atonements are seen as proof of guilt rather than as redemption.
You're dealing with people who will twist everything to suit their purposes--and screw integrity.
The man needs to be taken out back--not to be hung up so his opponents can rip him apart.
Of course, all that's moot now.
I just hope its not too late
December 13, 2002 10:32 AM
Well, hopefully Lott just steps down as majority leader and not out of the Senate completely. I mean, he has no business in a leadership position, but we do need numbers, after all.
I really can't believe how much controversy has come from this. Slow news week, possibly?
December 13, 2002 12:06 PM
Slow news week, indeed, Demosthenes. You know, I think this has really been blown out of proportion. Here's a colleage honoring a guy on his hundrendth birthday, talking about his political career. And in any politician's life, surely the biggest and most memorable event must be running for President!
The last 54 years have been pretty troublesome from a political point of view. Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, massive cultural upheavals, all with a subtext of nuclear war hanging over it.
Now maybe I'm just politically insensitive, or maybe not hypersensitive, and I'm sure not PC, but I don't see how saying to someone who ran in '48 at his HUNDREDTH birthday party that 'if he'd got elected into office we wouldn't have all these problems' is condoning segregation and the racial outlooks of 1948. Unless you're LOOKING for something to hang him on, and willing to use any pretext possible.
What should he have said? "Strom, it's a damn good thing your lily-white, nigger-hating sorry ass didn't get elected in '48"? Sadly, I think that's the only thing that might have been acceptable.
I wouldn't know Trent Lott from any other joe on the street. He supposedly tried to keep Blacks out of his fraternity in the early 60's?
HELLO! In Mississippi in '60s, segregation was the custom AND the law. Can't it be figured that his attitudes have changed in 40+ years? Or is it only Democrats who are given a pass and allowed to change their stances like that?
And it goes to show how 'tired' we are of the WoT if it's something as honestly MINOR as this that gets a week's play in the media.
December 14, 2002 09:34 AM
Unitl the left gets as indignant about racist comments from their own (Robert Byrd and his "white nigger"), they have no credibility. They display monumental hypocrisy and selective indignation with their attacks on Lott (who made a stupid comment). They can spin a cement brick for a democrat, but their "compassion" disappears when the person has a capital R after his/her name. This is why they were repudiated on November 5. Americans are sick of their race baiting and class warfare. If they keep it up, THEY will be the 3rd party in '08
archie bunker |
December 17, 2002 02:22 AM