No More Trent Lott! - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2002, 12:35 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha



Of course not.

But that's a classic move to deflect attention and criticism; bringing up the transgressions of others, particularly members of the opposition, to soften something that one of your own has done. So many of the posters in this thread kept insisting that Lott was a some kind of victim of something other than his own way of thinking.

I certainly can appreciate it when Democrats get called for doing or saying something stupid, racist, or sexist (not Democrats!). It's when that's repeatedly brought up as some kind of justification for not going after someone like Lott that I disagree with it.


And, since when is a son responsible for the actions of his father? Or is there someting about Al Gore your not telling me?
no no martha-it has to do w one word..hypocrsy.
thats all.

al gores father= al gores baggage.
the dems were planning to use this racial thing as stratagy.
the gop woulda brought up alfred gores racial past in the next election the minute al gore went to the race card.
this is one of the reasons al had to step down.
he was damaged goods if race relations were brought into the forefront of the next election..
al left the race too soon acting out of fear.

diamond
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 03:47 PM   #77
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Pub Crawler....

My policing comment has to do with the above statement. Bush has made the party stronger and taken the issue from the democrats. It is bad for the party to have it perceived as being a party of 'Bigots". I still think it sucks that an off the cuff comment gets blown out of proportion. However, perception is reality, and it was time for the good of the party to cut the bait.

Peace

Fine. I'm cynical about your response and I do not agree with some of the underlying premises you have put forth, but at least you answered succinctly and articulately here -- in contrast to earlier posts in this thread where you were all over the place in your defense of Lott (e.g., you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton).

That said, if there is truth in what you say about Bush's strategy with respect to his private and public airings on Lott, then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?
__________________

__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 04:35 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?
Well this is where u r in error because Bush has demonstated his
diversity and anti bigotry by his cabinet selection.

He didnt wanted slap Trent the clumsy ox more than nesecessray.
He was trying to salvage a dumb ass' character by saying nice things once he was removed...

Diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 05:07 PM   #79
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:46 AM
"Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting. It basically leaves me with the impression that Bush wants to court the center more in the next election. Something he will be able to do since he is not going to be challenged for the nomination so he does not have to court the extreme right as he did in the last election after losing New Hampshire.

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes. This removed the issue from the hands of the Democrat, and made him look like he was promoting his agenda of compassionate conservatism.

THis week he will publicly go on the record as saying he does not think Lott should have stepped down and that Lott is not a bigot. Even though behind the scenes he had him removed. It is in Bush's best interests to have Lott removed so that the party is not perceived as the party of bigotry in the next election. It is also in his best interests to have his hands clean from the removal so that he does not lose the support of the right.

By doing this he has just made the republican party stronger. He has his own man as majority leader and will now be able to put forward a more compassionate conservative adjenda."


diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 05:13 PM   #80
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:46 AM
To clarify my earlier post to Dreadsox where I stated:

"you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton"

I should have said:

"In effect and/or in a roundabout sort of way, you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton."
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 05:27 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
If you can separate his comment from his past, then go for it. I can't separate what people say from what they believe. You'll have to school me in that skill someday. Or not.
I would certainly like to learn the skill of looking into a man's heart and be able to tell him what he believes.

What triggered this whole incident was a casual comment. Any calls for his removal prior to the comment (based on his past and beliefs) were deafeningly silent.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 06:32 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
[i].



diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing. [/B]
these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..

welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .
HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.

Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..

is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
is he indeed a compassionate man and broad thinker?
yes

Welcome to the modern age.
The land of sound bites sensationalism and screaming liberals.

thank u-
your friend-
diamond

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 07:49 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler



Fine. I'm cynical about your response and I do not agree with some of the underlying premises you have put forth, but at least you answered succinctly and articulately here -- in contrast to earlier posts in this thread where you were all over the place in your defense of Lott (e.g., you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton).

That said, if there is truth in what you say about Bush's strategy with respect to his private and public airings on Lott, then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?
Ummmm...No was not desperate. If you want to interpret it that way that is fine. I think I have said a number of times I am not trying deflect or raise smoke screens on this issue. I cannot help your interpretation of it. Diamond sums it up though....Hypocracy. Lott committed no crime, Clinton did.

As to the truth behind my statement, I can only report what I read and my interpretation of it. As for Mr. Bush being a schemer......

President Bush did not start off looking to be so right in the last election. He was pushed there by McCain. He was realing from the loss in NH and had to turn somewhere. If you recall, he visited Bob Jones and the Newsweek article also pointed out that someone (not associated with the Bush campain) was raising questions about McCains "black daughter", whom he and his wife adopted. All things that I am sure BUsh would like to not have to do next time around if he is indeed courting the center.

The President is a shrewd politician.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 07:50 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
To clarify my earlier post to Dreadsox where I stated:

"you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton"

I should have said:

"In effect and/or in a roundabout sort of way, you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton."
Nope

But you can think that if you want to.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 07:56 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
"Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting. It basically leaves me with the impression that Bush wants to court the center more in the next election. Something he will be able to do since he is not going to be challenged for the nomination so he does not have to court the extreme right as he did in the last election after losing New Hampshire.

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes. This removed the issue from the hands of the Democrat, and made him look like he was promoting his agenda of compassionate conservatism.

THis week he will publicly go on the record as saying he does not think Lott should have stepped down and that Lott is not a bigot. Even though behind the scenes he had him removed. It is in Bush's best interests to have Lott removed so that the party is not perceived as the party of bigotry in the next election. It is also in his best interests to have his hands clean from the removal so that he does not lose the support of the right.

By doing this he has just made the republican party stronger. He has his own man as majority leader and will now be able to put forward a more compassionate conservative adjenda."


diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing.
These are my words....and I think they emphasize the way a politician works. Especially a skilled one.

No different than the way any politician, no matter what party works.

If you think of Kennedy for a moment. The general public had no idea that the President cut a deal with the USSR to have the missles removed from Cuba. Kennedy was perfectly happy letting the public think it was his blockade that did the trick. Not that he told the USSR that he would remove the missles the US had in Turkey.

Brilliant political gamesmanship. Set himself up nicely for the next election had he made it.



PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 08:03 PM   #86
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..
True, but I like the way dread read between the lines because it shows Bush's true colors. I'll bet it's pretty close to a dead-on interpretation.


Quote:
welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .
Well if it's necessary than I think it's time for a major revamp of our political system and process.


Quote:
HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.
I won't respond to each of these points now because I'd rather do some research first.

Quote:
Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..
If you're including me in those you are addressing here, I'll let you know -- for what it's worth -- I'm not a Democrat. I think the Democratic and Republican platforms are too similar and I agree with neither. Frankly, I wouldn't miss either party if they both went away.

Quote:
is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
...

Welcome to the modern age.
Just about every politician plays the games -- I'll agree. But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it's completely wrong.


Thank you.
your friend.
pub crawler
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 08:08 PM   #87
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


These are my words....and I think they emphasize the way a politician works. Especially a skilled one.

No different than the way any politician, no matter what party works.


PEACE

True, it works the same way in either party. And I still think it's wrong.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 08:47 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:46 AM

just as long as dread and pub realize who their daddy really is..
me

thank u
Diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 09:16 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by martha



Of course not.

But that's a classic move to deflect attention and criticism; bringing up the transgressions of others, particularly members of the opposition, to soften something that one of your own has done. So many of the posters in this thread kept insisting that Lott was a some kind of victim of something other than his own way of thinking.

I certainly can appreciate it when Democrats get called for doing or saying something stupid, racist, or sexist (not Democrats!). It's when that's repeatedly brought up as some kind of justification for not going after someone like Lott that I disagree with it.


And, since when is a son responsible for the actions of his father? Or is there someting about Al Gore your not telling me?
Fair enough, martha. I guess my point in highlighting the transgressions of Gore and Clinton was because of an old biblically-based theme I personally try to follow, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now I am cerainly not imposing a theocracy where all of our politicians and past politicians are forced to live by such biblical rules or that public policy should be shaped around this, but it is generally a good rule to live by.

Granted, Clinton and Gore are now on the entertainment and collegiate speech circuits, so I guess they do not have to worry about re-election consequences, but if they ARE going to make public comments about the situation, then they should expect people to put them under the scope of political correctness as well.

Regarding Al Gore, Jr. and the influence he woudl have had on his father, I am merely pointing out his relationship to another player in the whole Southern "states' rights" and "Dixieicratic" movements that I as a Southerner am so terribly ashamed of.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 12-22-2002, 09:31 PM   #90
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..

welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .
HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.

Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..

is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
is he indeed a compassionate man and broad thinker?
yes


I agree with you that he did those things but arent alot of those things things he SAID not ACTIONS?



We have all must relize what sort of world we live in and the politcs that are practiced. Bush isnt the president because his bus stopped at the white house he is the president because he is a great politician.

This say one thing and do another is a good political move to a degree. All of us here have figured out quite easily what Bush did with Lott. Do we not think no one else can just as easily figure it out and it could work againist him? I can nearly guarentee if Bush came out and denounced Lotts comments (even though they really arent as bad as some Dem. are making them) and support the man, Lott would still be around. Or is this just the opp. Bush was looking for to get rid of Lott?
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com