Press "Enter" to skip to content

News update

Cold Fury clarifies his earlier statements, and I believe I thus owe him an apology. I can’t hold being closed-minded against him, either; I think that people on the left are just as likely to be closed-minded in exactly the same sort of a way. You think (say) Atrios believes a word Bush says without some sort of evidence? Nope.

Nor should he, any more than Cold Fury should believe Democratic politicos. Hidden agendas are the nature of the beast. The Republicans accused Max Cleland of being a pacifist! Pointing your finger at the left as the only people who do this is simply silly. “Did you know John McCain has an illegitimate black child?”

Now, I think Trent Lott’s comments were pretty clear, and I remembered his involvement with Bob Jones University, and so forth. Still, I can understand holding off a little. On the other hand, I would hope that people will remember this, and the next time a Democrat says “This guy’s support of Bob Jones makes him suspect,” they’ll listen. It’s not always crying wolf.

Nonetheless: my apologies for the mischaracterization.

14 Comments

  1. No apology necessary, Bryant. I probably didn’t state my position very well (a regular problem for me, trust me) and thus I can understand why you formed the impression you did. But thanks just the same. And you’re right about all those bastard politicians too. 😉

  2. Oh, and hopefully Lott will be gone soon and we won’t have any need to remember all this beyond trying to learn whatever lessons we can draw from it all. I’m not exactly holding my breath, but it could happen yet.

  3. I was raised to be a gentleman, despite my longhair liberal ways, so hey. Agreed on Lott, as well.

    As someone pointed out (Henley or Reynolds, I forgot which) one of the really regrettable side effects of the Dixiecrats was the pollution of the term “state’s rights.” It’s a perfectly good, very meaningful political concept — but it was used in the South as a code word for segregation. I suppose that code words are supposed to cloud issues. That one does a fine job.

  4. You just said a mouthful, and it applies to plenty of things besides states’ rights, right across the board. I’m not always (or even usually, actually) polite or respectful in my comments on things – on my site and elsewhere too – and I’m all for a good vigorous argument and all that, but damn, it just seems sometimes that both sides are longer even speaking the same language anymore. And that’s not a good thing.

  5. Well you damn well owe ME one, you condescending little heap of shit! You read ONE sentence, said sentence letting everybody and their brother know that I don’t care one sun bleached dog’s turd about what happened to Lott and that I feel he should’ve been kicked the Hell off his position a LONG time ago, mentioning on the side that there are enough SERIOUS reasons to call for his resignations without digging into what amounts to a lame ass pat on the back of an old man on his B-day, and you immediately assume (notice how the word begins with “ASS”, Buckwheat!) that I’m a friggin’ SEGREGATIONIST?!!!

    Did you pick up the ability to leap tall buildings with your leaps of logic in high school or were you just BORN being an arrogant, know-it-all (you think) son of a mangy bitch?

    You call me “racist” just ONCE friggin’ more, you snotty little ass-pirate, just TRY it!

    You must’ve used that copy of “How To Win Friends and Influence People” to wipe your zitted little behind, presumably because it didn’t have enough pictures in it.

  6. You, Mischa my sweet, can cope. Also maybe get a reading comprehension class. I didn’t say you were a segregationist; I said you were on the side of the segregationists, and since you’re still defending Lott against charges of racism… that can stand.

    Thanks for coming over and chatting, though.

  7. Yep, I’m still maintaining that there’s nothing racist in complimenting an old man by saying that he’d have made a good president, imagine that. Whether Lott is or is not a racist and/or a segregationist based on that alone is just too much of an Idiotarian leap to conclusions for those of us with more than half a brain.

    And I suppose I should thank you for your generous “downgrading” of your insults to me “only” being a segregationist supporter rather than a segregationist based on my inability to read anything more into that comment, but I rather think that I won’t. I believe that you’re the only one who can see a difference there, but that shouldn’t hardly surprise anyone with the cerebral capacity above that of a lobotomized possum.

    Your “charges” may stand, but your argument doesn’t, by any known standard, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from the illiterate idiotarians of the blogosphere.

    Now go ahead screaming “racist” left, right and center, you stupid twat, hopefully you’ll one day make the mistake of doing it to somebody’s face.

  8. Oh, and one more thing other than the double post (I suppose you can figure out a way to delete one of them, it’s not all that hard if you apply yourself):

    If calling for somebody’s resignation, calling him a stupid asswipe and a feckless, limpwristed waste of skin is “defending” him, I’d hate to see what “attacking” would amount to.

    Fuckhead.

  9. Temper, temper. Also that reading comprehension problem again.

    There’s a difference between “defending Trent Lott” and “defending Trent Lott against charges of racism.” Can you figure out what it is? I bet you can, if you try hard.

    I bet you won’t try hard, though.

  10. Maybe Lott isn’t the only one who wasn’t aware what it would have meant if Thurmond’s presidential bid had succeeded?

  11. Ah, having read through the balance of the comments on the Emperor’s site, I see that the position is “Such comments were to be understood to have no meaning at all,” not “The meaning of the comments was benign.” I’ll keep that in mind next time I have occasion to compliment someone on striving to achieve immoral ends.

  12. I’ll let you know whenever I’m in the market for your unsolicited advice regarding my temper.

    Other than that, I see that you predictably used the easy out by commenting on the second post and ignoring the first.

    You’ve still failed to convince me that telling an old man that he’d have made a fine president at his birthday party is irrevocable evidence that you’re a racist, not to mention demonstrating how it is that you and other Idiotarians manage to read peoples’ minds so that you can say, with absolute certainty, what they meant when they said something.

    I have some friends that would be extremely interested if you and your friends had actually come up with a functioning mindreading device and would most likely reward you richly if you were to share.

  13. It’s fun to dismiss people with labels, isn’t it? It must be – you seem to have devoted an entire site to it.

    I know there are people who want to convince you that Lott’s comment is proof that he’s a racist. I can’t speak for Bryant, but I’m not among them. Lott’s comment is proof that Lott says irredeemably tacky things. It may have been an act of ignorance or lack of presence of mind, but the meaning of the statement was clear. Presumably, that meaning is not one Lott actually endorses, but the difference between “You would have made a fine president,” and “You should have won your presidential bid in 1948” would, I think, be plain to most observers. You can argue that Lott did not understand the meaning of his words, but it seems far fetched to claim that the words themselves have other than the plain meaning one would associate with them.

    Apologies to Bryant for drawing this out, and wedging my way into the fight.

  14. No skin off my back, kodi. Mischa’s amply proven himself to be a troll (and yes, Mischa, I would happily say that to your face if you ever gave me the chance), so I’m not about to engage him further, but I don’t mind if you want to. What are friends for?

    I don’t think, by the by, that one comment proves anything. I think Lott’s history of similar comments, his voting record, and his stated views in interviews do constitute reasonable proof. But that’s me.

    You know, it’s interesting. When did we start making these excuses for politicians? I mean, was there ever a time when we believed in holding men to what they say? Or were we always willing to write off comments like these as “just something they have to say to get elected.”?

    And if it’s the latter, why the hell do we believe the things they say when they say things we want to hear?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.