There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't find it hard to believe at all that you have no defense and are just using retoric to cover that up. It's your problem if you want to be taken seriously here.
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
As for inconsistency what about this? Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>This thread is starting to look like "de worlds longest river" three times.
Denial, denial, denial.
To criticize Bush is not being Anti-American. Come on, guys, use your own brains and stop mindlessly defending an obvious failure.
Groverat, you've been asked several times to state what you think are Bush's achievements. I'm listening.
Open your minds and look at the record.
Add to Bush's legacy of failure his anti-environment and anti-women's rights policies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're asking for something they can't give. I've heard it before but I'm tired of the retoric so I'm just calling them on it this time. I liked Byrd's speech and even if he was a klan member 56 years ago it still doesn't change the substance in what he said the other day.
No matter how much they try to cloud the issue.
He hit the nail pretty squarely on the head and I'm glad someone finally brought this to light in such a concise manner.
You're asking for something they can't give. I've heard it before but I'm tired of the retoric so I'm just calling them on it this time. I liked Byrd's speech and even if he was a klan member 56 years ago it still doesn't change the substance in what he said the other day. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He could be in the Klan now (for all I know he IS) and it still wouldn't detract from his comments, or Brian Eno's....
<strong>we liberals forgive bush for his alcoholic, coke snorting</strong><hr></blockquote>
We forgive him, yes. As someone who has worked in the field of substance abuse, I strongly feel that these people should be given a second, third or even fourth chance (Note: additional chances do not apply in the United States if you are black, latin-american, and/or poor and your background is not "Bush"). However, I also know of the devastating long-term effects that this abuse can have on mental capacity and judgment. Positions of high responsibility might not be appropriate for such persons.
Consider that with one decision from George W., the world goes "boom". Sobering, isn't it?
Well then your comments have no substance or meaning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh no! That's going to cause many a sleepless night.
[quote]<strong>... and people should consider this when reading your posts in the future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure others can make up their own minds about my posts. Tell you what: you can continue to let Bobby Byrd do your thinking for you and I'll continue to point fingers and laugh.
I'm sure others can make up their own minds about my posts. Tell you what: you can continue to let Bobby Byrd do your thinking for you and I'll continue to point fingers and laugh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
With your lack of ability to back up your posts with any fact and childish compulsion for wanting the last word I'm sure they've already have made up their minds. And no it won't cause anyone a sleepless night. It just means you're full of hot air and not worth listening to. Surely you're not as vacuous as you sound?
You're really just not good with the substance are you? Come on quit hiding behind false bravado and keep on topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been how many pages now and it has yet to dawn on you that I have no intention of discussing Byrd's speech? I'm not hiding behind anything and for the love of Mike! - What makes you think this is a game of chess? I just like poking you with a stick. I don't feel smug about it. It's actually just a guilty pleasure.
It's been how many pages now and it has yet to dawn on you that I have no intention of discussing Byrd's speech? I'm not hiding behind anything and for the love of Mike! - What makes you think this is a game of chess? I just like poking you with a stick. I don't feel smug about it. It's actually just a guilty pleasure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll tell you what. For the last few paragraphs it's been much the same for me the guilty pleasure part that is. You were being poked while you were attempting to poke back ( you had nothing to argue with and why would you come back so many times unless it bothered you? ).
Sorry to have ruffled your ego but, this is an open forum. In a forum there exists a dialogue not a monologue. There's always the chance that someone might challenge what you have to say. If you don't like that don't post.
But since you really don't have any basis for your remarks ( other than Byrd was a klansman 56 years ago which has nothing to do with what we were talking about ) I'll be gracious and let you have the last word. Since that seems to mean so much to you..........
... But since you really don't have any basis for your remarks ( other than Byrd was a klansman 56 years ago which has nothing to do with what we were talking about )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, there was more to it than him being a klansman (as bad as that is) 56 years ago. His 14 hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act wasn't 56 years ago. His vote against the Voting Rights Act wasn't 56 years ago. His votes against Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall weren't 56 years ago. His use of that racial epithet on national television wasn't 56 years ago. He has a record and it isn't a good one. Given his history it's fair to wonder if his participation in the current filibuster of the Estrada nomination is also due to racial animus. From the 1930s to the 1960s filibusters were the main weapons weilded against civil rights legislation. This must feel like old times to Byrd. But you are willing to overlook all of that because he had some sharp words for Bush. That's your call to make, I suppose.
He's participating in the filibuster? Somehow I doubt it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not one of the four Democrats who have come out in favor of Estrada so yes, he's participating by supporting the filibuster.
[quote]<strong>... But if he is, good for him. Estrada definitely should not be approved.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Estrada has a stellar resume. At age 17 he came to America from the Honduras. He then went to Columbia and Harvard Law where he graduated from both institutions with honors. After Harvard he clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Then he went to Manhattan's U.S. Attorney's office where he was a prosecutor. From there he went on to be the assistant to the Solicitor General in both the Bush and Clinton admins where he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court winning 10 of them. Estrada has recieved the highest possible rating from the ABA. Still don't believe he should be approved? Look at what these former bosses (all Democrats) said about him:
[quote]Drew Days III, who served as Solicitor General in the Clinton Administration, has publicly supported Mr. Estrada, saying, "I think he's a superb lawyer." Randolph Moss, President Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, also praises Mr. Estrada's qualifications and strongly supports his nomination. "Miguel is widely, and deservedly, regarded as an extraordinary legal talent. He has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the law, a powerful intellect, and an ability to bring coherence to even the most complicated legal doctrine." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Moss goes on to say that "Although I am Democrat and Miguel and I do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, I hold Miguel in the highest regard and I urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to his nomination... Miguel is a brilliant, dedicated, and principled lawyer. I firmly believe that Miguel will quickly earn a reputation as one of the finest appellate judges in the Nation." Ronald Klain, who was Vice President Gore's chief of staff and has known Mr. Estrada for nearly 20 years, also strongly supports his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Klain describes Mr. Estrada as "a person of outstanding character [and] tremendous intellect... [with] outstanding credentials... and [an] incredible record of achievement." Beyond his obvious qualifications, Mr. Klain supports Mr. Estrada's nomination for three additional reasons. "First, Miguel is a serious lawyer who takes the law very seriously... I have no doubt that, on the bench, Miguel will faithfully apply the precedents of his court, and the Supreme Court, without regard to his personal views or his political perspectives... Second, Miguel will rule justly toward all, without showing favor to any group or individual... [The] challenges he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need... Third, [he has an] independent streak... [that] will give every litigant, from any point of view, a fair chance to persuade Miguel of the rightness of his or her case... He will ask tough questions of both sides, and give both sides a chance to win... This powerful intellectual quality is not unhinged from a compassion for the people-rather it is harnessed by Miguel in service of that compassion. It is a quality that will make Miguel a very fair judge."<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't find it hard to believe at all that you have no defense and are just using retoric to cover that up. It's your problem if you want to be taken seriously here.
Still in check.
<strong>
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever but you still need to stay on topic.
Still in check.
<strong>
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
As for inconsistency what about this? Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Topic, topic, topic, smoke and mirrors, topic.
Still in check.
<strong>
I don't find it hard to believe at all that you have no defense... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then don't. I don't need to defend myself.
<strong>
Then don't. I don't need to defend myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well then your comments have no substance or meaning and people should consider this when reading your posts in the future.
Still in check.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>This thread is starting to look like "de worlds longest river" three times.
Denial, denial, denial.
To criticize Bush is not being Anti-American. Come on, guys, use your own brains and stop mindlessly defending an obvious failure.
Groverat, you've been asked several times to state what you think are Bush's achievements. I'm listening.
Open your minds and look at the record.
Add to Bush's legacy of failure his anti-environment and anti-women's rights policies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're asking for something they can't give. I've heard it before but I'm tired of the retoric so I'm just calling them on it this time. I liked Byrd's speech and even if he was a klan member 56 years ago it still doesn't change the substance in what he said the other day.
No matter how much they try to cloud the issue.
He hit the nail pretty squarely on the head and I'm glad someone finally brought this to light in such a concise manner.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
You're asking for something they can't give. I've heard it before but I'm tired of the retoric so I'm just calling them on it this time. I liked Byrd's speech and even if he was a klan member 56 years ago it still doesn't change the substance in what he said the other day. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He could be in the Klan now (for all I know he IS) and it still wouldn't detract from his comments, or Brian Eno's....
<strong>we liberals forgive bush for his alcoholic, coke snorting</strong><hr></blockquote>
We forgive him, yes. As someone who has worked in the field of substance abuse, I strongly feel that these people should be given a second, third or even fourth chance (Note: additional chances do not apply in the United States if you are black, latin-american, and/or poor and your background is not "Bush"). However, I also know of the devastating long-term effects that this abuse can have on mental capacity and judgment. Positions of high responsibility might not be appropriate for such persons.
Consider that with one decision from George W., the world goes "boom". Sobering, isn't it?
<strong>
Consider that with one decision from George W., the world goes "boom". Sobering, isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No pun intended I assume....
<strong>PS it's "rhetoric", not "retoric".</strong><hr></blockquote>
As in rhetorical. Sorry I must be tired.
oops!
<strong>
Well then your comments have no substance or meaning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh no! That's going to cause many a sleepless night.
[quote]<strong>... and people should consider this when reading your posts in the future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure others can make up their own minds about my posts. Tell you what: you can continue to let Bobby Byrd do your thinking for you and I'll continue to point fingers and laugh.
<strong>
I'm sure others can make up their own minds about my posts. Tell you what: you can continue to let Bobby Byrd do your thinking for you and I'll continue to point fingers and laugh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
With your lack of ability to back up your posts with any fact and childish compulsion for wanting the last word I'm sure they've already have made up their minds. And no it won't cause anyone a sleepless night. It just means you're full of hot air and not worth listening to. Surely you're not as vacuous as you sound?
Still in check.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
... And no it won't cause anyone a sleepless night...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not... oh, nevermind.
<strong>
That's not... oh, nevermind.
You can act smug but, you don't appear smug.
You're really just not good with the substance are you? Come on quit hiding behind false bravado and keep on topic.
Still in check.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
You can act smug but, you don't appear smug.
You're really just not good with the substance are you? Come on quit hiding behind false bravado and keep on topic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been how many pages now and it has yet to dawn on you that I have no intention of discussing Byrd's speech? I'm not hiding behind anything and for the love of Mike! - What makes you think this is a game of chess? I just like poking you with a stick. I don't feel smug about it. It's actually just a guilty pleasure.
<strong>
It's been how many pages now and it has yet to dawn on you that I have no intention of discussing Byrd's speech? I'm not hiding behind anything and for the love of Mike! - What makes you think this is a game of chess? I just like poking you with a stick. I don't feel smug about it. It's actually just a guilty pleasure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll tell you what. For the last few paragraphs it's been much the same for me the guilty pleasure part that is. You were being poked while you were attempting to poke back ( you had nothing to argue with and why would you come back so many times unless it bothered you? ).
Sorry to have ruffled your ego but, this is an open forum. In a forum there exists a dialogue not a monologue. There's always the chance that someone might challenge what you have to say. If you don't like that don't post.
But since you really don't have any basis for your remarks ( other than Byrd was a klansman 56 years ago which has nothing to do with what we were talking about ) I'll be gracious and let you have the last word. Since that seems to mean so much to you..........
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
... But since you really don't have any basis for your remarks ( other than Byrd was a klansman 56 years ago which has nothing to do with what we were talking about )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, there was more to it than him being a klansman (as bad as that is) 56 years ago. His 14 hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act wasn't 56 years ago. His vote against the Voting Rights Act wasn't 56 years ago. His votes against Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall weren't 56 years ago. His use of that racial epithet on national television wasn't 56 years ago. He has a record and it isn't a good one. Given his history it's fair to wonder if his participation in the current filibuster of the Estrada nomination is also due to racial animus. From the 1930s to the 1960s filibusters were the main weapons weilded against civil rights legislation. This must feel like old times to Byrd. But you are willing to overlook all of that because he had some sharp words for Bush. That's your call to make, I suppose.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
He's participating in the filibuster? Somehow I doubt it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not one of the four Democrats who have come out in favor of Estrada so yes, he's participating by supporting the filibuster.
[quote]<strong>... But if he is, good for him. Estrada definitely should not be approved.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Estrada has a stellar resume. At age 17 he came to America from the Honduras. He then went to Columbia and Harvard Law where he graduated from both institutions with honors. After Harvard he clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Then he went to Manhattan's U.S. Attorney's office where he was a prosecutor. From there he went on to be the assistant to the Solicitor General in both the Bush and Clinton admins where he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court winning 10 of them. Estrada has recieved the highest possible rating from the ABA. Still don't believe he should be approved? Look at what these former bosses (all Democrats) said about him:
<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/estradalatinocoalition.pdf"; target="_blank">link</a> (pdf doc)
[quote]Drew Days III, who served as Solicitor General in the Clinton Administration, has publicly supported Mr. Estrada, saying, "I think he's a superb lawyer." Randolph Moss, President Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, also praises Mr. Estrada's qualifications and strongly supports his nomination. "Miguel is widely, and deservedly, regarded as an extraordinary legal talent. He has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the law, a powerful intellect, and an ability to bring coherence to even the most complicated legal doctrine." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Moss goes on to say that "Although I am Democrat and Miguel and I do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, I hold Miguel in the highest regard and I urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to his nomination... Miguel is a brilliant, dedicated, and principled lawyer. I firmly believe that Miguel will quickly earn a reputation as one of the finest appellate judges in the Nation." Ronald Klain, who was Vice President Gore's chief of staff and has known Mr. Estrada for nearly 20 years, also strongly supports his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Klain describes Mr. Estrada as "a person of outstanding character [and] tremendous intellect... [with] outstanding credentials... and [an] incredible record of achievement." Beyond his obvious qualifications, Mr. Klain supports Mr. Estrada's nomination for three additional reasons. "First, Miguel is a serious lawyer who takes the law very seriously... I have no doubt that, on the bench, Miguel will faithfully apply the precedents of his court, and the Supreme Court, without regard to his personal views or his political perspectives... Second, Miguel will rule justly toward all, without showing favor to any group or individual... [The] challenges he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need... Third, [he has an] independent streak... [that] will give every litigant, from any point of view, a fair chance to persuade Miguel of the rightness of his or her case... He will ask tough questions of both sides, and give both sides a chance to win... This powerful intellectual quality is not unhinged from a compassion for the people-rather it is harnessed by Miguel in service of that compassion. It is a quality that will make Miguel a very fair judge."<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
It's been how many pages now and it has yet to dawn on you that I have no intention of discussing Byrd's speech? </strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're finally admitting that you're just a troll?