12-12-2002 02:11									#121
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Come on Imran, don't try to defend this rubbish.

	12-12-2002 02:14									#122
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui To say Lott supports segregation is ludicrous. I guess the blacks on his staff are there because he didn't hire them?

People who support segregation generally don't have a problem with "the others" working for them, just being equal to them.

	12-12-2002 02:14									#123
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

He's not defending the rubbish, you are.

	12-12-2002 02:22									#124
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Monkspider, the rubbish is people jumping all over Lott for putting his foot in his mouth trying to praise his friend on his 100th birthday.

	12-12-2002 02:25									#125
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The rubbish is, twice now, Lott has been seen praising segregationists.

	12-12-2002 02:28									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

We also have a bloated federal government today with many federal social welfare programs from the war on poverty. The lack of states rights we also see today has also manifested itself in the murder of millions of innocent babies AKA abortion. The Federal government also prohibits school prayer (something I personally think is good). There also a big number of other things the Feds have intervened with WRT to seperation of Church and State. The Feds power is so unbalanced at this point they can basically force the states to do whatvever they want by threatening to withdraw funding, even though the people in those states will still be paying taxes for the funding of other states that their state has been denied. While the 10th amendment has been making somewhat of a come back, states have still lost a ton of their rights.

Maybe those are what Lott was refering too when he said "All these Problems"?

	12-12-2002 02:28									#127
	Got spare money?

He praised a friend, Strom.

Where does it lead to plural? And Thurmond has long stopped being a segregationist.

Maybe I should call for Byrd to step down for being a Klan member.

	12-12-2002 09:24									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Shi

It's amazing how some people are socialized to believe stuff like that...

Lott is a racist. With that 4sshole Thurmond as prez, we'd probably have some self-righteous, christian government that discriminates against anyone who isn't white. Looking back at history, I get discouraged when I think about how all of this crap is still just beneath the surface. Conservative = Bad... I don't want to see crosses being burned and minorities being exploited like the GOP. Lott showed his true colors.

	12-12-2002 09:34									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Where does it lead to plural? And Thurmond has long stopped being a segregationist. Maybe I should call for Byrd to step down for being a Klan member.

The criticism isn't of Thurmond, it's of Lott. Not Thurmond. Lott. See?

Byrd, like Thurmond, has acknowledged his past and admitted it, apologized and moved on.

Lott, however, has obfuscated, ducked, and been coy about it. He lied about his interaction with the CCofC (Lott: I told them I disapproved of their philosophy; Head of CCofC: Uh, no he didnt...), and he made a comment that indicates he would have liked to have seen the segregationist won (twice, at least) so he could use his presidential authority to keep segregation in place (which is what Thurmond was running for, despite Shi's stream of BS).

That is the difference. Lott is getting exactly what he deserves here.

	12-12-2002 11:04									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"so he could use his presidential authority to keep segregation in place (which is what Thurmond was running for, despite Shi's stream of BS)."

That wasn't what he said. He said if Thurmond had been elected we wouldn't have all these problems. You have zero evidence he meant segregation unless you are a mindreader.

	12-12-2002 11:16									#131
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi "so he could use his presidential authority to keep segregation in place (which is what Thurmond was running for, despite Shi's stream of BS)." That wasn't what he said. He said if Thurmond had been elected we wouldn't have all these problems. You have zero evidence he meant segregation unless you are a mindreader.

Wasn't Thurmond's slogan when running for president "segregation forever"? If you support his campaign, then you are supporting the campaign platform. Which means you are supporting segregation.

	12-12-2002 11:27									#132
	Get a bigger avatar today!

One thing you all should know by now is each of us is a person first and then a person with a job second. Lott was born in 41 and because he lived in Mississippi said he grew up with segregation as a way of life. It also means that his first 12 year of school there were not any black kids in his school.
Remember George Wallace he received 20% or more of the vote in 68 for President.

	12-12-2002 11:38									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley Wasn't Thurmond's platform when running for president "segregation forever"? If you support his campaign, then you are supporting the campaign platform. Which means you are supporting segregation.

Not nessecarily. For instance, Che mentioned once a few far-lefties actually voted for Bush because they thought Bush would be more isolationist then Gore(oops). That doesn't mean that those lefties liked Bush or agreed with say, the big tax cut he enacted.

	12-12-2002 11:47									#134
	Remove this text

All of you questioning Lott's intentions should read this interview:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashb.htm

	12-12-2002 16:39									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: He said if Thurmond had been elected we wouldn't have all these problems. You have zero evidence he meant segregation unless you are a mindreader.

You think that Thurmond was running because he didn't like Truman's agricultural policies? The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic convention specifically over the civil rights plank voted into the platform.

Here's Thurmond campaigning in 1948:

quote: Ladies and gentlemen, there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming polls, into our homes and into our churches.

His meaning is quite clear. Listen for yourself. The only point of the Thurmond campaign in 1948 was a defense of White Supremacy in the South.

But as mentioned, the point isn't Thurmond, it's Lott. Thurmond's moved on; good for him. We're still waiting on Lott.

	12-12-2002 19:31									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Lott apologised for any misunderstanding his comments may have caused, but of course the hypocritical democrats will keep hounding him because they have nothing better to do.

	12-12-2002 20:53									#137
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Lott apologised for any misunderstanding his comments may have caused, but of course the hypocritical democrats will keep hounding him because they have nothing better to do.

Just like the Republicans hounded Clinton.

	12-12-2002 20:57									#138
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley Just like the Republicans hounded Clinton.

When Lott gets it as much a Clinton does, then they can unleash the dogs of war. Not before.

	12-12-2002 20:59									#139
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

	12-12-2002 21:08									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

Reagan disgraced the White House when he circumvented the Constitution to fund C.A. anti-communist guerillas. Nixon disgraced the White House by his Watergate shenanigans.

Comparing that to getting a bj from an intern is laughable. The private sex lives of politicians, however sordid you may find it, is in an entirely different sphere than abuse of presidential power.

Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. I think anyone should have the right to keep their affairs private. But when you're the target of a coordinated witch hunt by your political foes (just what was the Whitewater prosecutor doing in a civil suit about sexual harrasment?), I suppose such privacy is no longer sacrosanct.

	12-12-2002 21:12									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

You don't see how the question might be material to a harrassment lawsuit.

Oh how history would have been different if Clinton had settled that suit years ago. We all would have been spared much annoyance.

Sigh

	12-12-2002 21:22									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You don't see how the question might be material to a harrassment lawsuit.

No. Engaging in a mutually consentual extramarital affair isn't remotely harassment. And Jones's lawyers wouldn't have had a clue about it if Inspector Starr hadn't been feeding the infor to him for the sole purpose of embarrassing the president.

quote: Oh how history would have been different if Clinton had settled that suit years ago. We all would have been spared much annoyance. Sigh

I agree, and certainly don't think Clinton made the wisest move. However, I also sympathize with him because I think Jones was full of ****. I think she went along with him and then later decided she could get some money and fame out of suing the president. So in sense Clinton was right to fight the suit.

	12-12-2002 21:41									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Reagan disgraced the White House when he circumvented the Constitution to fund C.A. anti-communist guerillas. Nixon disgraced the White House by his Watergate shenanigans.

So its ok because other presidents did worse things.

quote: Comparing that to getting a bj from an intern is laughable.

It's laughable because you are trying to justify Clinton by pointing at other presidents saying "they did worse!".

quote: The private sex lives of politicians, however sordid you may find it, is in an entirely different sphere than abuse of presidential power.

So why are you comparing? I guess because you have to bring up something really rank to make Clinton look decent.

Are you saying you don't find it sordid that he cheated on his wife in the oval office?! Or is that "not really cheating"?

quote: Clinton lied about it because it was his private business and the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

If you had an employee that was getting bj's from their intern at work, would you consider it their "private business"?

quote: I think anyone should have the right to keep their affairs private. But when you're the target of a coordinated witch hunt by your political foes (just what was the Whitewater prosecutor doing in a civil suit about sexual harrasment?), I suppose such privacy is no longer sacrosanct.

When you commit such an act in you place of work, you forfeit the right to privacy.

	12-12-2002 21:46									#144
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So in sense Clinton was right to fight the suit.

He wasn't right in any sense to fight the suit once the SCOTUS said that it could go foward. It proved to be a horrible distraction for the country and tainted his Presidency.

	12-12-2002 21:54									#145
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia So its ok because other presidents did worse things. It's laughable because you are trying to justify Clinton by pointing at other presidents saying "they did worse!". So why are you comparing? I guess because you have to bring up something really rank to make Clinton look decent.

You're not getting this--it isn't about justifying Clinton's actions or saying he's decent. YOU were the one who started the comparisons by saying what Lott did doesn't compare to Clinton. So it's fair game to make comparisons to Clinton and others.

No, what I'm saying is that his actions aren't remotely a "disgrace" to the White House. That's melodramatic hyperbole. And I never said Clinton was decent. I will hold him to the same standards I hold other presidents, and that is the standard of their performance as president, not how they lead their sex lives

quote: Are you saying you don't find it sordid that he cheated on his wife in the oval office?! Or is that "not really cheating"?

Sordid? Yes. That wasn't the issue, though. It was whether it merited the impeachment flap and calling it a "disgrace" to the White House. The impeachment was a disgrace to Congress and the country, and the White House was sullied by the witch hunt against Clinton for a sexual affair that was no different than what has been going on in the White House since it was built.

And as can be seen by Livingston's ignominious exit from Congress, Gingrinch's sordid affairs and the others who kept their mouths shut and voted "no" because they knew Flynt had the smoking gun on them, he was also being condemned by a group of blatant hypocrits.

quote: If you had an employee that was getting bj's from their intern at work, would you consider it their "private business"?

First, the White House is also the president's residence. Second, the president isn't my employee, nor is he Congress's employee. Oh, and they never did anything in the Oval Office.

And is there any prohibition against doing such a thing in his office?

Frankly, I don't consider it any of our business. If it was somehow impeding his job performance, then it would be a problem. But his 65% approval ratings showed that wasn't the case. If he'd been violating the constitution to further a political agenda, that would also be bad. But no, he was just getting a hummer from an intern who aggressively set out to get her man and got him. Big fat whoopdedoo.

	12-12-2002 21:56									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc He wasn't right in any sense to fight the suit once the SCOTUS said that it could go foward. It proved to be a horrible distraction for the country and tainted his Presidency.

I meant that he could defend himself in court in the suit. Wasn't referring to fighting the suit itself.

And it did taint his presidency, certainly. But it also tainted Congress for their inappropriate impeachment and laughable show trial.

	12-12-2002 22:05									#147
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by uh Clem You think that Thurmond was running because he didn't like Truman's agricultural policies? The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic convention specifically over the civil rights plank voted into the platform.

Your argument is as Illogical as it's unconstitutional.

You shouldn't have bothered clipping the part of my post where i said it's most likely he meant that only to post the exact same thing as "rebuttal".

Be that as it may, this "thought police" crap a number of people in this thread and in the real world have been spouting is WAY out of line.

Did he ACTUALLY say something wrong, or did YOU INFER it?

Big difference.

	12-12-2002 22:11									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You're not getting this--it isn't about justifying Clinton's actions or saying he's decent. YOU were the one who started the comparisons by saying what Lott did doesn't compare to Clinton.

No I didn't. Show me where I said that.

quote: So it's fair game to make comparisons to Clinton and others.

But you yourself said the comparison is laughable.

quote: No, what I'm saying is that his actions aren't remotely a "disgrace" to the White House. That's melodramatic hyperbole.

When your conduct in the White House is disgraceful, you disgrace the White House. Are you saying you don't think his conduct was disgraceful?

quote: And I never said Clinton was decent. I will hold him to the same standards I hold other presidents, and that is the standard of their performance as president, not how they lead their sex lives

Once again you are trying to seperate what he did from his public life, sorry, he did what he did at work, not in the privacy of his own home.

quote: Sordid? Yes. That wasn't the issue, though. It was whether it merited the impeachment flap and calling it a "disgrace" to the White House. The impeachment was a disgrace to Congress and the country, and the White House was sullied by the witch hunt against Clinton for a sexual affair that was no different than what has been going on in the White House since it was built.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the comparison is "laughable", now it's "no different". You can't have it both ways.

quote: And as can be seen by Livingston's ignominious exit from Congress, Gingrinch's sordid affairs and the others who kept their mouths shut and voted "no" because they knew Flynt had the smoking gun on them, he was also being condemned by a group of blatant hypocrits.

Still pointing at others to make Clinton look better I see.

quote: First, the White House is also the president's residence. Second, the president isn't my employee, nor is he Congress's employee. Oh, and they never did anything in the Oval Office. And is there any prohibition against doing such a thing in his office?

Being president of the US is a 24/7 job, and and if you don't think he is employed by the people, where does the money for his paycheck come from? Oh, thats right, our taxes...

quote: Frankly, I don't consider it any of our business. If it was somehow impeding his job performance, then it would be a problem. But his 65% approval ratings showed that wasn't the case. If he'd been violating the constitution to further a political agenda, that would also be bad. But no, he was just getting a hummer from an intern who aggressively set out to get her man and got him. Big fat whoopdedoo.

Oh, so now its all Monica's fault?

	12-12-2002 22:26									#149
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia No I didn't. Show me where I said that.

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Clinton deserved it. He disgraced the White House with his antics then lied about it.

Since the thread is about Lott, this is saying that what Lott did didn't deserve criticism, but Clinton did. Hence a comparison.

quote: But you yourself said the comparison is laughable.

Riiiight...as in laughably unequal.

quote: When your conduct in the White House is disgraceful, you disgrace the White House. Are you saying you don't think his conduct was disgraceful?

No, because it was his private sex life. "Disgraceful" is a nice word to use if you're a Victorian matron with a moral axe to grind, but when it comes to his sex life, it's meaningless.

quote: Once again you are trying to seperate what he did from his public life, sorry, he did what he did at work, not in the privacy of his own home.

Since you later say that being president is a 24/7 job, you're saying he has no right to privacy whatsoever. That's a crock of ****. Put it simply: His conduct relating to public policy is our business. His conduct relating to sexual affairs is not our business.

quote: You are contradicting yourself. First you say the comparison is "laughable", now it's "no different". You can't have it both ways.

No different from other sexual conduct in the past in the White House, which is also none of our business. Again, there's a difference between abuse of presidential authority in matters of public policy and matters of sexual conduct. A huge huge huge difference.

quote: Still pointing at others to make Clinton look better I see.

No, pointing out that those who saw fit to judge his moral character were no better. That certainly is relevant to the issue. And again you were the one who said "Clinton deserved it," in an implication that he is worse than others.

quote: Being president of the US is a 24/7 job, and and if you don't think he is employed by the people, where does the money for his paycheck come from? Oh, thats right, our taxes...

And as I said, crock of ****. Being a politician does not mean one forfeits a private life. There is NOTHING prohibiting him leading his sex life as he wants. I don't recall a constitutional provision that says the president won't boink interns or else he loses his job.

quote: Oh, so now its all Monica's fault?

Fault? I'm not saying she's at fault, because I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID WAS ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. The fault of the whole scandal was, IMO, those who were going around digging up any salacious dirt they could find. I think Ken Starr is at fault.

Monica and Bill were mutually consenting partners. She wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, so her relevance to the Jones suit was NIL.

And again, how does this negate Lott's comments as being sorely inappropriate?

	12-12-2002 22:36									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.