First Soros with the dog attack, now Robert “KKK” Byrd.
“A pair of Jewish groups accused Sen. Robert Byrd on Wednesday of making an outrageous and reprehensible comparison between Adolf Hitler’s Nazis and a Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering.”
Of course, I expect this to pass unnoticed in the alternative universe of 2005 of CBSABCNBCNewYorkTimesCNNWashingtonPost.....
[QUOTE=TaxMan]First Soros with the dog attack, now Robert “KKK” Byrd.
“A pair of Jewish groups accused Sen. Robert Byrd on Wednesday of making an outrageous and reprehensible comparison between Adolf Hitler’s Nazis and a Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering.”
Of course, I expect this to pass unnoticed in the alternative universe of 2005 of CBSABCNBCNewYorkTimesCNNWashingtonPost.....
Why is it that the republicans didn’t seem to have a problem with Strom Thurmon being a former KKK member (all the while he had fathered a child with a black woman, talk about a hypocrit)?
FYI: I think both of them are idiotic, old farts that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.
[QUOTE=cenlaguy]Why is it that the republicans didn’t seem to have a problem with Strom Thurmon being a former KKK member (all the while he had fathered a child with a black woman, talk about a hypocrit)?
FYI: I think both of them are idiotic, old farts that should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.
Strom WAS a racist, in my opinion, because the times demanded that you do so to be elected. In the 60s (AFTER he became a Republican, by the way), he moderated his racial views, hired black staffers, appointed black judges, and started getting black votes. In other words, he was a politician.
KKK Byrd, however, joined the Klan and it’s unclear as to whether he has ever repented his sins. His remarks yesterday to me are more of the same.
And Byrd has been there so long, he thinks he can hold up the Senate to his whims. And he did some of the same to Clinton, incidentally.
What bothers me is that if you’re gonna have outrage over Trent Lott’s history, what Byrd said and says should not be exempt from such scrutiny.
[QUOTE=Unregistered66]Good point, taxman !! thes lib’s think everybody’s past is important ...BUT THEIR’S !!!!!!!!!!! Byrd is an idiot.
You know, it’s curious how many liberals REFUSE to engage in a debate over their beliefs. I DO think they believe THEY know what’s best and that we “red staters” are idiots.
Could it be that liberalism has no more intellectual energy? I tried to find ONE THING they were for last year, and really couldn’t think of anything that would make me want to drop everything and vote Democratic.
And, of course, I’ll be accused of being a partisan who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Which goes with the territory. Because I have voted against Republicans who in my opinion are not or would not be a good fit for the job.
[QUOTE=cenlaguy]I agree Byrd is an idiot and if you read my earlier post, I said just that.
I liked TaxMan’s response about Strom though. He more or less said Strom was a racist who would do or say whatever was needed in order to be elected.
So how are Strom and Byrd really any different, other than Byrd still has a pulse, however weak it might be.
I’m gonna pick at your words here. I think Strom played the race card back in the 40s to the 60s because it was thought you HAD to do so to stay elected. And he changed because of the times.
My complaint is that Strom and Trent Lott will get beat up every time because of their ideology. Robert Byrd can say what he wants, and there is not a similar sense of outrage.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]
KKK Byrd, however, joined the Klan and it’s unclear as to whether he has ever repented his sins. His remarks yesterday to me are more of the same.
Wrong, of course. Byrd has apologized repeatedly for joining the KKK. It doesn’t matter, though, since Republicans will still apply a double standard.
[QUOTE=Rincewind]Wrong, of course. Byrd has apologized repeatedly for joining the KKK. It doesn’t matter, though, since Republicans will still apply a double standard.
And for his latest remark? Have Dan and Peter called him on it and demanded that he resign?
[QUOTE=TaxMan]I’m gonna pick at your words here. I think Strom played the race card back in the 40s to the 60s because it was thought you HAD to do so to stay elected. And he changed because of the times.
My complaint is that Strom and Trent Lott will get beat up every time because of their ideology. Robert Byrd can say what he wants, and there is not a similar sense of outrage.
Oh please, he changed after he fathered a child with a black woman and figured he was gonna be hammered with that if he kept up his racism. Hell, Byrd’s comments didn’t have anything to do with racist remarks conerning blacks but on every post in here his name is KKK Byrd.
Byrd’s remarks were concerning the fact that the republicans want to do away with the fillabuster since they are in control. But they sure as #### didn’t have any problems using it and other means of interrupting the Clinton’s agenda when they weren’t in power.
The democrats might be sore loosers, but the republicans are being sore winners.
[QUOTE=Rincewind]Wrong, of course. Byrd has apologized repeatedly for joining the KKK. It doesn’t matter, though, since Republicans will still apply a double standard.
I suppose it’s ok for the Democrats to compare the Republicans to ####’s; but if you look at it, the Democratic party is the party responsible for the extemination of over 77 million lives through abortion.
[QUOTE=Taxpayer]I suppose it’s ok for the Democrats to compare the Republicans to ####’s; but if you look at it, the Democratic party is the party responsible for the extemination of over 77 million lives through abortion.
What should that be called?
The party of Death?
One guy compared the republicans in congress to nazis because they wanted to change the rules of the game since they are now in power and suddenly you are calling the democratic party the party of death. You can’t win an arguement so you change the subject.
Turns out that KKK Bob isn’t so pure, as back in the days the Democrats had a stanglehold on power, he was part of a movement to REDUCE the fillibuster threshold from 67 to 60 senators.
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: “We cannot allow a minority” of the senators “to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.” Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. (emphasis added)”
[QUOTE=TaxMan]Turns out that KKK Bob isn’t so pure, as back in the days the Democrats had a stanglehold on power, he was part of a movement to REDUCE the fillibuster threshold from 67 to 60 senators.
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: “We cannot allow a minority” of the senators “to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.” Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. (emphasis added)”
So he wanted to reduce it by 7 and the republicans now want to reduce it again by 9 so that 51 seantors can run the entire senate. Screw what the other 49 think.
[QUOTE=cenlaguy]So he wanted to reduce it by 7 and the republicans now want to reduce it again by 9 so that 51 seantors can run the entire senate. Screw what the other 49 think.
Does majority rule mean anything anymore? Actually, I’d favor something like 55, because you CAN have tyranny of the majority.
Plus, at the time, Democrats had about 65 senators, so they wanted to make it harder for a small minority to obstruct things. And I personally think 67 was WAY too high. Especially in today’s contentious climate.
HOWEVER, he’s not so pure on the whole fillibuster thing. That was why I brought up that article.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]Does majority rule mean anything anymore? Actually, I’d favor something like 55, because you CAN have tyranny of the majority.
Plus, at the time, Democrats had about 65 senators, so they wanted to make it harder for a small minority to obstruct things. And I personally think 67 was WAY too high. Especially in today’s contentious climate.
HOWEVER, he’s not so pure on the whole fillibuster thing. That was why I brought up that article.
Actually, the rules of the Senate are time-tested and don’t need to be changed rashly. I favor needing a supermajority to change things.
[QUOTE=Mike the Tiger]Actually, the rules of the Senate are time-tested and don’t need to be changed rashly. I favor needing a supermajority to change things.
As in 40 obstinate Democrats can hold up whatever they want whenever they want?
Keep in mind that Tom Daschle’s obstructionisms reduced their numbers from 50 (thanks to “Jumpin Jim") to 44. I find it interesting that in the Deep South, there are 4 Democratic Senators left. 3 of them are from Louisiana/Arkansas.
