13-12-2002 18:10									#271
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Krugman today in the NYTimes wrote an interesting article about the South; I don't agree wih most of it, but I do wonder at one basic point: Why do the states that gain the most out of Federalism in terms of services and development aid (The South, the West, those states either too poor or with population's too small to matter) always vote agains the idea of Federalism while those states that loose (California, the Northeast, those huge or rich states) by sending more money out as federal taxes than they will ever recoup always vote for it? If some hick from Mississippi doesn't care for income taxes, then why should I send him mine to pay for his subsidies and roads? Hell, if NY state and NJ stopped paying their federal taxes and kept all the money they export to Mississippi or Alabama, or Arkansas or Nebraska, Montana, or S. Dakota then our defecits would be far lower. It must be somehting in the water.....

There are various reasons for this rather than one that fits every state. States in the West have a large percentage of their land owned by the Feds. Thus what the Feds do in terms of regulations etc. has a much greater impact in many cases in Colorado than it does in New Jersey. Federal land tends to limit the ability of these states to develop state identities and institutions, as the Federal Government land in many cases cuts these states into pieces, and severely limits their ability to develop in the same ways that Eastern States did. So these states end up with smaller and weaker local and state governments which are much more sensitive to Federal power than elsewhere.

A lot of the Southern resentment of the Feds stems from the forcible changing of Southern institutions by the Feds during the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement. Of course a lot of Southerners are fine with this now, but there are still quite a few who resent being not only forced to behave according to someone else's values, but being regularly abused by the larger American culture as well. Finally, in response the South has tended to be a one party area for better and mostly worse. The benefit of this for them is that it gives them much more power in Congress due to longevity, and hence a lot of pork. Of course it also gives all of us an opportunity to enjoy more corruption and poorer legislation in general.

As for Trent Lott, he has again risen to the top of mu Senate sh!t list. He certainly doesn't deserve to represent the Republican party as its leader in the Senate, though I leave it up to Mississipians to decide whether he represents them or not.

	13-12-2002 18:46									#272
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley I think the point has been lost in the commotion. Ken Starr started out with an investigation into Whitewater. When after $70m was spent and he couldn't even get Clinton for writing a bad check, in desperation, he went after Clinton's sex life. The questions about his sex life, since they had nothing to do with the original investigation, should never have asked in the first place. This was in the finest mudslinging tradition and the mud stuck.

Wrong. Starr was given the Lewinski case, he didn't create it. If the vast right wing conspiracy had control they would have kept the investigations seperate rather than puting them all in the hands of one rather poor public figure who could be smeared as being "out to get Clinton".

	13-12-2002 18:47									#273
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law.

It is against the law in many places, though perhaps not in Washington.

	13-12-2002 18:51									#274
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley The question should never have been asked. The question was irrelevant. What does a private affair have to do with Whitewater? I am still not sure why the question was allowed. [end threadjack] I promise.

It had nothing to do with Whitewater, and the question wasn't asked in connection to Whitewater, it was asked in connection with a civil lawsuit filed against Clinton for sexual harrassment. It was allowed because it was material to show a pattern of conduct. When Clinton perjured himself he committed a felony for which he was impeached, and he lost his license to practise law in exchange for the charges being dropped.

	13-12-2002 19:20									#275
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 I see you couldn't raise the bar Boris, you STILL don't understand that congress acts as a court in an impeachment proceding, and they did convict him. Sorry Mike, your wrong here.

Whether you're being obtuse deliberately or not, this is still pretty funny! Hmmm, who has more credibility...MtG, who has, oh, some legal knowledge, or you, who has demonstrated none?

Where in the Constitution does it say the impeachment proceedings are akin to a criminal court? Please cite.

However, you're in a no-win situation here no matter what, Chrissy-poo. You clearly don't understand what "impeachment" even means, and I'm beginning to think you don't know what "conviction" means.

Let me help you with a non-1928 definition:

im·peach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

As you can see, nothing about conviction--merely accusations, dear Chris. You seem not to understand the U.S. legal system difference between an accusation and a conviction. But pray, tell us...doesn't a trial usually preceed a conviction? And yet, Clinton's trial came after impeachment. How would that work in your crazy world where impeachment equals conviction?

By the way, you don't even seem to know what "Congress" means. Congress = The House of Representatives AND the Senate. Only the House voted to impeach Clinton, as only the House has such ability. He was tried in the Senate, he was acquitted in the Senate. And he was acquitted with Republican votes in the Senate.

Now, this is only if you go by your erroneous assertion that the impeachment proceedings were the same as a criminal trial, which they were not. Do you recall that the Special Prosecutor was prepared to indict and try Clinton for perjury outside of the congressional proceedings? We have a little thing in our law called "double jeopardy." That means you can't be tried for the same crime twice. If the Senate trial had been criminal in nature, it would have made him immune from such charges by the special prosecutor.

quote: Someday Dear Boris, when you grow up a bit, you might find that trying to insult people, and holding your breath and stomping your foot (your posting equivelent is pages of "NO, I'M RIGHT, {Insert childish insult}") will never convince anyone of your postion. I know it makes you feel good to hurt others with insults, I don't like to, you bring it out in me, but that is my failing, and I try to address it.

Sounds like a nice summary of your own behavior, actually. Your first post in this thread was insulting in tone. You were the first to use childish insults. I simply said such a nasty attitude wasn't welcome in the thread I started. And since you use such rotten behavior with everyone you argue with, I'd say the problem is indeed with you, not anyone else. Therapy?

quote: That's the difference between us, it's called maturity, and I fervently hope you will someday understand that your childishness just makes people uncomfortable..

Riiight, you're so much more mature, Chris. Considering I've never sent a private message to someone threatening them physically over things going on in a message board, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on in the "maturity" argument. Unless you think threats are mature, yes?

quote: Clinton was guilty, but escaped through the Denocrats voting in mass in the senate not to impeach, then they marched to the white house and applauded him..

First, Clinton was never found guilty of anything, as we've addressed. You may feel he was guilty, but that means nothing in a legal sense.

Second, the Senate Democrats never marched to the White House and applauded him after the trial. That was the House of Represenatives, and it was after the impeachment vote. Once again, you don't seem to know the difference between the House and the Senate nor impeachment and conviction.

quote: All your rants will never change that, nor will your pedantic swipes at Lott, dinosaur he may be, he still actually said NOTHING wrong.

Hey, if you're comfortable saying racists statements aren't wrong, that's up to you and your beliefs. I'd think you'd look very unbecoming in a hood, though.

The rest of your post was just blah blah blither blah. I do eagerly await the day, however, when you have gotten a clue. Until then---game, set, match.

	13-12-2002 19:29									#276
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

See what I mean?

Silly insults and lol smileys, dripping in scarcaism.

Your a child Boris.

Ask Mike what he thinks of my opinion, since he and I are long time friends.

You can't even be adult enough to speak on a level of civility, you try to attack all the time, and your pettiness knows no bounds.

It's really a shame.

	13-12-2002 19:42									#277
	Full PM-box? Change here!

How exactly did this thread go from Lott and his big mouth to Clinton's beejer, the A-bomb, and a brewing flame war between two people who ought to know better?

Frankly, I'm disgusted (and not in the least bit surprised) that wastes-of-organic-molecules like Lott and Byrd manage to get elected time after time. It will be awful interesting if the GOP stands behind Lott for Senate Majority Leader... it would definitely conflict with their campaign to broaded the party's appeal to minorities.

	13-12-2002 19:48									#278
	Tired of ads?

Guy, I'm not going to get into a flame war with Boris, I'm trying to get him to just talk WITHOUT the scarcism.

I used to insult people also on Poly, and I made a concious effort to get past it (and a lot was brought on by my biterness over 9/11).

You and I have ofetn disagreed on matters, but we can talk about them, everytime I get into a conversation with Boris, it becomes Junior High, let's see who can be pettier.

I'm tired of it, and I fervently hope he sees that this does NOTHING to make poly fun, this constant scarcism.

So far, my efforts have been in vane, the smae kind of post appeared, overloaded with flase facts, tons of smilieys, and attempts to hurt and humiliate.

To get to the topic, Lott is coming under increased fire now, many conservaties feel he should step down.

	13-12-2002 20:03									#279
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Guy, I'm not going to get into a flame war with Boris, I'm trying to get him to just talk WITHOUT the scarcism. I used to insult people also on Poly, and I made a concious effort to get past it (and a lot was brought on by my biterness over 9/11). You and I have ofetn disagreed on matters, but we can talk about them, everytime I get into a conversation with Boris, it becomes Junior High, let's see who can be pettier.

Are you serious? Chris, your first post addressed to me started with this:

quote: Boris, you just don't know what your talking about.

Then, after I offered a pretty detailed rebuttal (free of any "sarcasm" too), your only answer was this:

quote: You are so full of sh1t you eyes must be brown Boris. Your busted, take it like a man, you little whiner.

And it got worse from there. You have a lot of gall to accuse me of being the insulter, when I've yet to see any post from you in this forum addressed to me that wasn't a condescending insult. You are incapable of disagreeing with people in a civil way. I agree with Loinburger in this regard--you flame me, I will flame you back. I know you get a little hard-on whenever you think you can flame me, but your efforts fall really flat (especially when you make such blatantly false statements like you have about impeachment here).

And the line about the smilies is rich--you who are the king of using the smiley after every sentence in your posts.

Keep trying Chris. And while you're at it, care to actually discuss the fact that you were completely wrong about impeachment and what it means? I'm waiting for this much-vaunted maturity of yours to fess up you were wrong about it. Maybe you'd even have the guts to apologize for starting off with insults, but I think baby steps are good at first.

Guy--I agree the discourse has gotten off-track. But like I said, if someone flames me, they can expect to get it back. I've never said I'm a turn-the-other-cheek type.

	13-12-2002 20:09									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Your like a lost cause Boris, I'm over here begging you to act like an adult, and it's ANOTHER post of scarcism and smilies.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE for you to converse on an adult level?

WITHOUT the pettiness?

	13-12-2002 20:24									#281
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Chris, you addressed me first in a childish, insulting manner. I responded with like fire. As I said, I fight flame with flame.

If you're upset about it, I suggest that, in the future, you don't start such things. Be mature and disagree with people respectfully from the start, or just don't say anything. Then you won't get your feelings hurt, ok?

Now unless you have more to add to the Lott discussion, or you want to bother to explain your erroneous assertions about impeachment, then please find someone else's thread to mangle. Thanks, boo.

	13-12-2002 20:31									#282
	Support Apolyton

If you were insulted, I appologise.

Next, your dead wrong on the impreachment process, but I can see your not changing your mind, which is fine.
We can agree to disagree.

Third, you don't own threads Boris, I see you several times told people to leave "your" threads, that's rather immpolite.

It's Christmas, let's all make an effort to get along.

Back to the topic, what do people think of Bush's rather firm rebuke of Lott, is Bush sincere or in damage control mode?

	13-12-2002 20:37									#283
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The "aggressive war" bit was more about initiating unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of pre-war international conventions.

That's my point. You're telling me that someone should be tried for unrestricted submarine warfare, but that intentionally burning civilians to death in air raids - intentionally, mind you, not collateral damage - is perfectly acceptable?

MtG, come on. Either you're wrong, and the atomic bombings were immoral, or you're again wrong, and the Nuremburg trials were wrong. You can't be right about both, because you are applying rather odd reasoning that doesn't make any sense. Point being, one way or another, by your own reasoning, you're wrong somewhere. I'll let you decide where, though.

	13-12-2002 20:38									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 If you were insulted, I appologise.

Thank you.

quote: Next, your dead wrong on the impreachment process, but I can see your not changing your mind, which is fine. We can agree to disagree.

Asserting this means nothing. I even gave you the definition of impeachment. Back up your assertions.

quote: Third, you don't own threads Boris, I see you several times told people to leave "your" threads, that's rather immpolite.

It is established precedent that Ming has supported that, if a thread starter feels the conversation has gotten off-topic, he can say something about it. He also has the right to set the tone of his threads and tell people to keep the tone in line with that.

That's why I called Carver on his really nasty comment to Joseph. I don't want that tone in here, it's simply repugnant. I'm glad he apologized.

quote: It's Christmas, let's all make an effort to get along.

Hug?

quote: Back to the topic, what do people think of Bush's rather firm rebuke of Lott, is Bush sincere or in damage control mode?

Damage control. He's trying to get as much distance from Lott as he can. Rove is no dummy and will do everything he can to keep the taint off Bush.

This has escalated to the point that all the Dems would have to do is show Lott's face in a commercial attacking the GOP, and minorities are going to get riled and remember this instance. He's damaged goods now, so the White House is going to keep far away. Looks like he may seriously not keep his leadership position.

	13-12-2002 20:40									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oh, and Mike, you're not responding to many of my points, so would it be fair to assume you're conceding any of the points you're not arguing?

	13-12-2002 20:41									#286
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Back to the topic, what do people think of Bush's rather firm rebuke of Lott, is Bush sincere or in damage control mode?

Maybe a bit of both, but mostly damage control. Come on; sincerity, in politics? Get real. Bush and his people probably realize that it was a obscenely stupid thing to say, and are trying to distance themselves from Lott. The real test will be if the administration stands behind Lott for Majority Leader. Hell, even Cal Thomas is calling for his head.

EDIT: being written while Boris posted his reply. Like we share a brain...

	13-12-2002 20:42									#287
	Begining of the end for Lott Inflate your Upload Space

Time: Trent Lott's Segregationist College Days

From Salon.com

quote: Lott: It gets worse Troubling new disclosures about the Senate's top Republican and his record on race relations raise questions about his fitness for office. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Anthony York Dec. 13, 2002 | President Bush rebuked incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott Thursday for his racially divisive remarks last week, and disturbing new revelations about Lott's record on race relations and wavering support among fellow Republicans raised new questions about whether he could hold on to the most powerful post in Congress. A new report published by Time Magazine online detailed Lott's efforts to block integration of his fraternity while he studied at the University of Mississippi. And in a 1984 interview that circulated widely Thursday, Lott expressed strong opposition to the national holiday that had been established to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King. Based on those and earlier disclosures, a picture emerged of Lott as a 21st century Republican leader who was still fighting battles that his ideological allies had lost in 1865 and in the civil rights era of the mid-1900s. It was a picture that made even past allies profoundly uneasy. Conservative commentator William Bennett, the self-styled arbiter of American moral decline, said Lott's comments last week at a birthday bash for Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., were "offensive, repugnant and inimical to what the Republican Party stands for." "If Senator Lott can provide a satisfactory explanation for his statement, this entire episode should be forgotten," said Bennett, the education secretary under President Ronald Reagan, in a statement reported by CNN. "If he cannot, he needs to step down as the Senate majority leader." Lott's troubles began at Thurmond's bash, where he told the crowd the United States "wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if it had followed Mississippi's lead and backed Thurmond's 1948 bid for the presidency. And according to other reports this week, Lott made a similar comment in 1980 during a Reagan campaign rally. But Thurmond had openly run in '48 on a platform calling for segregation of the races. And though Lott has issued a series of explanations, regrets and apologies, the storm has continued to gather force. Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe criticized Bush for his tardiness in speaking out. "Unfortunately, it took a full week and enormous political pressure for the president to personally acknowledge what the American people have known all along, that Sen. Lott's remarks are anathema to our democratic [principles]," McAuliffe said. Of course, McAuliffe did not mention the tardiness of many Democrats in criticizing Lott. Some, like outgoing Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., initially accepted Lott's first apology Monday, and did not begin to criticize Lott's remarks until midweek. Though some of Lott's dubious history has been reported in past years, the latest controversy has sent reporters sifting through his record on race issues. Those searches have yielded a steady stream of new and rediscovered data that has caused many to question his fitness to lead the Senate. In his own defense, speaking to CNN's Larry King Wednesday, Lott said he had a record of promoting diversity in the state's universities. "I do have a long record of trying to involve African-Americans and supporting our historical black colleges and universities -- Jackson State University, Alcorn University -- making sure that we had an active intern program to bring African-Americans into the state." But Time Magazine published a story on its Web site Thursday detailing a very different history concerning Lott and diversity on Mississippi campuses. The piece details Lott's fight -- ultimately unsuccessful -- to keep blacks out of the Sigma Nu fraternity while he was a student at Ole Miss. "Trent was one of the strongest leaders in resisting the integration of the national fraternity in any of the chapters," said Tom Johnson, a former aide to President Lyndon Johnson who was a member of the same national fraternity as Lott during his student days at the University of Georgia. "He was against integration." The fraternity was integrated in 1968. Salon contributor Joshua Micah Marshall posted on his Web site the full text of a 1984 interview Lott gave to Southern Partisan magazine. In it, Lott refers to the Civil War as "the War of Aggression" and explains his opposition to the "punitive voting rights legislation" Congress passed in the 1980s, and his vote against a national holiday celebrating King's birthday. "I would not vote for a new holiday for anybody, including Thomas Jefferson," he told the magazine. "Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of people that were more deserving." Democrats including Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., have called upon Lott to step aside as majority leader. A number of conservative leaders, including the head of the Family Research Council and the Wall Street Journal editorial page have joined former Vice President Al Gore, the Congressional Black Caucus and civil rights groups in calling for Lott to give up his leadership post. To date, no Republican senators have called for Lott's resignation, but some, like Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., encouraged Lott to give a major speech to civil rights groups to explain his positions on race matters. Among those calling for Lott's resignation is People for the American Way president Ralph Neas. Neas said it is more than just Lott's recent comments that make him unfit for the post of Senate leader. "The more people find out about his overall record, the more they will continue to speak out," he said. "This was not an aberration. Throughout his career, Trent Lott has clearly demonstrated an insensitivity and hostility to key civil rights principles and protections." Independent political analysts offered similar views Thursday. "Daschle's reaction was everyone's initial reaction," said Morris P. Fiorina, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "'Well, that was a dumb thing to say but we all say dumb things sometimes.' But it doesn't look like this was off the cuff when you realize he's said things like that before ... This wasn't a case of a guy tossing off a few beers." Can Lott survive as Senate majority leader? "I couldn't predict that yet," Fiorina said, "but it seems more serious now than when it first appeared." Bruce Cain, a political analyst at the University of California at Berkeley, suggested Lott could survive -- but that it might be difficult. "That will depend exclusively on the Republicans," Cain said. "If they believe he's become a major electoral liability, he'll be thrown out ... Without looking at all the data, my guess is that he has become a liability, and they'll have to get rid of him in the next year or so." Salon editorial fellow Laura McClure contributed to this report.

	13-12-2002 20:43									#288
	Got spare money?

Not so sure Bush is completely into damage control.

His history race wise is very strong, I really think he was annoyed with Lott.

	13-12-2002 20:45									#289
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 I really think he was annoyed with Lott.

Probably so, since Lott seems to have undone in a week what the Republicans have taken years to do, which was try and present a more diversity friendly Republican Party.

	13-12-2002 20:47									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I think he was annoyed with Lott for making a statement that the Dems could get such political mileage out of.

I can't think that it is a sincere rebuke of the statement itself because it was so late in coming. It was in the media days before Bush said anything. They were waiting to see what the media fallout would be. When it was clear it wasn't going away and the issue was becoming a problem, then he stepped up.

Daschle is guilty of the same thing, though.

	13-12-2002 20:53									#291
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Daschle seemed to give Lott a pass, I thought, with his comments on it.

Some strategists think Lott needs to address the Black Cacus directly, explain himself and appologise more forcefully.

	13-12-2002 20:54									#292
	Put an end to popups!

As I said, not completely damage control; heaven knows I don't have a high opinion of our president, but I've never thought of him as a racist. Some sincerity yes; but it's hard to know how much considering someone wrote those words for him. I'm not sure I'd describe his history "very strong" when it comes to race either, but when compared to Lott, he's practically a saint.

	13-12-2002 20:57									#293
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Personally, I think Daschle is a moron. As a Democratic leader, he doesn't take advantage of the Republicans' political blunders. Even Al Gore seems to be attacking the Republicans on their mistakes more than Daschle.

Edit: BTW, I don't think Bush is a racist, he's too stupid.

	13-12-2002 20:57									#294
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Daschle is changing his tune? Imagine that. So what is that ineffectual hack saying now that it appears people are turning against Lott?

	13-12-2002 21:02									#295
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

No word today from the Dems, at least I haven't seen any.

I have a feeling Tom won't press to hard, he looked bad complaining about Rush Limbaugh and bad press, so you get the pot calling the kettle black.

	13-12-2002 21:05									#296
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: WASHINGTON Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Dec. 13 — Sen. Trent Lott clung to support from his Republican colleagues as President Bush denounced his comments showing a nostalgia for the nation's segregationist past. But the president stopped short of saying the Senate majority-leader-to-be had become a liability to the party. "Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong," Bush told a multiracial audience in Philadelphia on Thursday as the White House, intent on courting minority voters, moved forcefully to distance itself from Lott's remarks. But Bush's spokesman said the president didn't believe Lott, set to take over as Senate majority leader in January, should step down, and several Republican senators came to his defense. Black lawmakers demanded that Lott resign or be censured and critics dug up new examples from the Mississippi lawmaker's past they said revealed a pattern of disdain for civil rights. "He has apologized, and rightly so," Bush said. "Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals." Lott's office quickly concurred. "Senator Lott agrees with President Bush that his words were wrong and he is sorry. He repudiates segregation because it is immoral," Lott spokesman Ron Bonjean said. Lott touched off the furor last week when, at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., he said Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in 1948 when he headed the pro-segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either," Lott added. Lott issued a short apology on Monday acknowledging his "poor choice of words," and, as criticisms continued to mount, gave several interviews on Wednesday in which he said his "terrible" and "insensitive" remarks were meant only as a gesture of affection for Thurmond. The White House at first tried to stay clear of the controversy, but Bush and his advisers, in meetings Wednesday night and Thursday morning, decided it could undermine their efforts to increase black support in the next election. In 2000 Bush received just 9 percent of the black vote. "The founding ideals of the political party I represent was and remains today the equal dignity and equal rights of every American," Bush told an audience including several black ministers in a speech unveiling a new policy to integrate religious charities into government programs. White House officials said Lott was being given a chance to retain his leadership post, although it was ultimately up to Lott and his fellow GOP senators. Republicans, at least publicly, stood behind Lott. "The president did Trent Lott a big favor today," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who accompanied Bush to Philadelphia. "He basically cleared the air. ... This is not an issue that divides us anymore." "I think Senator Lott has already fixed it," said Lott's Mississippi colleague, Republican Sen. Thad Cochran. "He's explained that he didn't mean to be endorsing any policies of the past, particularly the segregationist platform that Strom Thurmond ran on in '48." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has clashed with Lott on various issues in the past, said Lott still needed to "have a full-blown press conference with an opening description of his absolute outright hostility to discrimination in any form." Lott, who has previously admitted supporting segregation as a student at the University of Mississippi when U.S. marshals brought the first black student to the school, continued to be battered by revelations on his civil rights record. Time Magazine on Thursday reported that some 40 years ago Lott led an effort to prevent his all-white fraternity from integrating any of its chapter. Critics have also listed such past actions as his 1983 vote against a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., his 1982 vote against the Voting Rights Act extension and his efforts to restore confederate president Jefferson Davis' citizenship. It was also reported that at a 1980 rally in Mississippi he expressed similar regrets that Thurmond hadn't been elected in 1948. "We have examined Senator Lott's record," Congressional Black Caucus leaders Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in a statement. "It is offensive and morally reprehensible that a public official with such a record would be reinstated to serve as majority leader of the United States Senate." The Black Caucus said Lott should be formally censured by the Senate. Other Democrats went further. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he agreed with statements made earlier by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., that "given the tragic history of race relations in this country," Lott should step down as Republican leader. Lott, who has a 30-year career in the House and the Senate, rose to the position of Senate Republican leader and majority leader in 1996 when Bob Dole quit the Senate to concentrate on his run for the White House. His Senate colleagues re-elected him without opposition last month.

	13-12-2002 21:15									#297
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sava Personally, I think Daschle is a moron. As a Democratic leader, he doesn't take advantage of the Republicans' political blunders. Even Al Gore seems to be attacking the Republicans on their mistakes more than Daschle. Edit: BTW, I don't think Bush is a racist, he's too stupid.

Daschle is a decent man, he's just incompetent, yes. If he had just been consistent about it, that would have been better. Instead he changed his tune when the situation became a bit hotter for Lott.

Gore was very quick to denounce Lott's comments, but doesn't seem to be calling for his head on a spit.

	13-12-2002 21:16									#298
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yeah, Daschle made a big mistake going after Limbaugh. Jeez, its not like its a secret that Rush is a dumbf*ck. I don't know why Daschle even wasted his time.

	13-12-2002 21:18									#299
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Daschle is a decent man, he's just incompetent, yes. If he had just been consistent about it, that would have been better. Instead he changed his tune when the situation became a bit hotter for Lott.

I've got nothing against Daschle, he's just a boob .

quote: Gore was very quick to denounce Lott's comments, but doesn't seem to be calling for his head on a spit.

Gore is smart enough to recognize that calling for Lott's resignation would be a bad move. Gore's attitude (from what I saw on MSNBC's Hardball) was more like, "Bring the facts to the table and let the people decide".

I haven't really been a Gore fan, but he's definitely saying the right things .

	13-12-2002 21:19									#300
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Daschle is a decent man,

No, he's a weasal. He's just an incompetant weasal.