This is interesting. I did not know that Fulbright was a segregationist. I had a Fulbright scholarship for my studies at the University of Houston and I read up a little bit on the guy, but never stumbled across that part of his biography. It is really strange because how can you be an internationalist and a segregationist at the same time? All I can say is that the guy has done a lot for international understanding and made it possible for many, many people to gain a better understanding of other cultures. I personally met the first black Fulbright scholar ever to come to Germany (he studied in Germany many decades ago and he is from Houston). Some renowned photographer from Houston took pictures of that guy and me together which were shown at exhibitions around the United States. If Fulbright was a racist, how come he made it possible for both black and white people to study abroad... I am now eager to find out more about this.
I fail to see how that is praising his segregationist record. Unparalleled service refers to Thurmond's having served in Congress for the longest period of time in the history of our country. There's nothing wrong with praising Thurmond as a career. Hell, I admire the man for how long he's stuck around. It's not the same as saying if he'd have one, this country wouldn't have had the problems it did.
http://azimuth.harcourtcollege.com/history/ayers/chapter28/28.2.principles.html Check this out Jackie. Fulbright was a big fan of "separate but equal".
Unparalleled RECORD of service. (nice try of changing the words around to suit the meaning you desire though) Hangoutboy, do I need to explain the meaning of RECORD to you?
So no one else sees Karl Rove's hands all over this one? And what does Clinton have to do with anything? I don't understand the Fulbright reference... did I miss something? Some of you folks should be proud of Rove. He's doing a great job. Not that I'm happy about it.
Thanks. I just read some other sources as well. No doubt that the guy was a segregationist and, by today's standards, one would probably consider his actions racist. Seems like the guy had a pretty complex personality. Maybe I should get this book: http://www.powells.com/biblio/50800-51000/0521482623.html
t*, you repeatedly have trouble thinking outside of the box. You try to indict democrats b/c other people under that label have committed attrocious acts. Some might say that your incessant stereotyping is remarkable in that it speaks of a larger trend comparable to... you guessed it! racism, that's right. Noting that trend, and repeatedly correcting you and challenging you to find any of my "selective moral outrage" apparently doesn't raise your interest. A quick lesson for you. Yes, I am in fact a Democrat. But... oh my god, watch me now, hold on, are you sitting down? I... have... never... voted... for... Clinton... in... my... life... That's actually immaterial in this particular discussion, but I think it speaks to your larger confusion that there are two parties and thus two groups of people. Recently Dan Kennedy, when laughing off suggestions that the liberals would be able to duplicate conservative-media integration in which multiple factions "stay on page", made the hilarious joke "telling liberals what to think is like trying to herd cats". Is that your confusion? You woke up as a republican, and can only envisage one path of being a dittohead? I've perhaps written it 30x now directly in conversation with you: challenge yourself man. I don't know if you're up to the task, b/c you repeatedly make the same idiotic appeals to partisanship, but challenge yourself. Was Byrd a racist? **** Yeah! He was in the fetchin KKK! What a dirtbag! (though he apparently has a strong civil rights voting record). Would a mindless **** such as yourself be able to concede such a point, were he a republican? I'm starting to wonder about you. Think outside of the box, man. You seem to be speaking past everyone here; it's as if you coaxed your developmentally disabled brother into playing 'Democrat' in debate club. Raise your game. ----------------------------- Back on topic, there seems to be a subtle difference between the former President (whom I voted against 2x) applauding the, yes segregationist Fulbright and Lott applauding the, yes segregationist Thurmond. For one thing: Lott was a segregationist; Clinton never was a segregationist. I don't recall Clinton ever having spoken in front of the CCC and telling them "your philosophy is right!". I don't recall Clinton ever having opposed integration of his frat, and every chapter of his frat across the nation. I don't recall Clinton applauding the 1984 Republican budget package as "befitting Jefferson Davis' South". I don't recall Clinton ever directly complimenting Fulbright's segregationism. Lott himself made the comment: "had this man been elected President, we wouldn't have had all of those problems". Was Fulbright Clinton's "mentor"; well he said as much! The subtle difference, if you're keeping track twizzle toes, is Fulbright was apparently influential with Clinton concerning the subject of Vietnam. Vietnam, as you might recall defined the youths of numerous baby boomers across the States. So, let me spell this out for you: A draft dodger compliments the Senator from his State who was a strong voice against the Vietnam war, who started numerous educational programs, was a Rhodes scholar like Clinton, and encouraged a liberal foreign policy with other countries. He was also a segregationist. A(n) historical segregationist compliments a retiring Senator's bid for the White House. Thurmond's bid for the White House focused on the one and only topic of segregation. Slight difference. Try again.
whoooaaaaa big fella...you sound like clinton apologists who tried to say he shouldn't be held responsible for perjury because we should all just forgive him as Christians. Forgiveness doesn't mean you ignore justice..it doesn't mean you step in the way of the natural effects of people's screwups...and it doesn't mean you let elected officials off the hook for jackass comments that fly in the face of your nation's ideals. the man was elected to a position...should we forgive him? absolutely we should. does that mean we don't hold him accountable?? absolutely not!
Good call, I was almost deluded into thinking that this was about addressing racial sensitivities and accountability. I guess Bush Sr. and the Adamses really made an impression on Dubya.
Excuse me, but any sane individual can see that Lott may have made an error in judgement, but for you to compare it to the crime of perjury is flat out hysterical. So, when people misspeak, they should loose their jobs? Hold your tongue oh righteous one! Look, I agreed that Lott should step down from a pragmatic standpoint, but lets be honest here. Blacks in Mississippi support Lott. That fact says volumes. He apologized, and resigned. He did the right thing after saying something stupid. This does not make Lott a bad person. If, however, you believe that Lott is a BAD PERSON for his poor choice of words, then Clinton should bear the same stigma, Byrd should be banished to the back benches, Fulbright should be stripped of his Medal of Freedom, and the aircraft carrier John Stennis should be renamed. Anything less is HYPOCRITICAL.
Yes Nomar, Achebe is a perfect example. Bill Clinton said that William Fulbright made "the most of his life". Carl Levin said that Strom Thurmond's political record was "unparalleled". Lott is no more guily than Clinton and Levin.
Nomar, you have gotten realy good at these useless, one-line declarations. Congrats. I have a better one for you, though: Democrats and Republicans are idiots. OK, children, you can now return to your repetitive b****fest. heb, You should know better. There are plenty of unthinking, rhetoric-spewing, follow-the-line liberals out there.
Another classic from the Heb. t*, Lott did not misspeak. He said exactly what he's been saying for 20 years. Do you have some poll numbers saying the blacks in Mississippi support Lott? Can you post that with a link please? Thanks.
Glad you followed the joke, thx1138. this was the original line I was spoofing. Silliness aside, I tend to agree with rimbaud this time. More and more, even though I lean to the left, I find it difficult to understand allegiance, let alone uncompromising defense, of either party. I'm going to stick to the threads about grooming or griping about how the Rox looked they were having absolutely zero fun in the game with the Warriors last night.
True, my point was that it takes effort to be a 'liberal', it takes a single-band AM radio to be a conservative. There's more variance in liberal thought (by definition) than conservative thought. The democratic party as a whole is concerned with forcing people to toe the line but liberals in general, imo, are more concerned with seemingly intellectual hogwash (stuff that's not always pragmatic) in their efforts to be logistically correct. Conservatives generally deride things that contradict intuition and principles... and of course insult things that are seemingly 'academic'. But your annihilistic post is duly noted. Nomar, Perhaps you can argue the point that a draft dodger obsessed with education, and who was diametrically opposed to segregation (ps for a later google-query just for the integrity of the Scholarship when/did Fulbright renounce segregation?) such as Clinton was saluting Fulbright's segregationist past; a segregationist such as Lott was speaking of something other than Thurmond's segregationist past when he spoke of Thurmond's segregationist campaign for President. t* has tried to paint over this subject w/ a broad, mindless, brush... but hasn't been compelling so far. Good luck to you sir; I wanted to play devil's advocate, but when I voice the words they sound as ridiculous as t*'s posts.
first of all..you're trying to use my religion against my point of view here...i guess that's fair game...but come on!!!! you can't pull out the "we should all be forgiven" card for everything...there is accountability, ultimately. no one is prosecuting lott...but there's nothing wrong with ousting him politically....for the GOP to say (as bush did), "your ideas run contrary to everything we love about america, and those ideas don't have a place with us!" second...lott misspoke?? or did lott say exactlly what he felt?? isn't that what we're upset about?? isn't that what bush spoke against so strongly?? not that he misspoke, but that he seemed to be saying that had we gone the route of segregation, things would have been better. that's what people are railing on. and for the record...you're damn right clinton should have lost his job....for legal reasons, not just political ones! byrd should be gone as well...but like lott, it will have to be due to political pressures.
