Opponent denies calling Clinton ugly

[Michael Tee]

<<Since you were responding to sirs and not me, I guess you're the one who should be embarrassed.>>

I am.  And I apologize to you.  Sorry.

[Amianthus]

There is no cumpulsion to conduct reasearch , when it is done it is a volentary effort and stands as work done out of generosity.

I agree with this. However, in this case, MT said that he was "obviously" right and would not hear of any evidence to the contrary. If he just said that he was wrong when presented with evidence to contradict his claim, he had no compulsion to conduct research. Continued assertions that he was correct in the face of evidence to the contrary, should have required him to conduct the research.

[Michael Tee]

<<However, in this case, MT said that he was "obviously" right and would not hear of any evidence to the contrary.>>

What case are you talking about? 

[Plane]

To those Republicans who continue to deny in the face of all common sense and historical fact that the Southern Strategy was an attempt by Republicans to capture white racist votes, get over it.  Ken Mehlman has already apologized for it!!!! - -

Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html - July 14, 2005 (Mehlman speech to NAACP)

"Renewing our common bonds is important for the African American community.  As my law school classmate and friend and now Senator Barak Obama says, there’s a reason that the farmers usually get what they want in politics.  All Americans – white, black, Asian, Hispanic – are better served by having two parties competing for their attention and their support.

The NAACP is too important, your mission too urgent, to be identified with one political party.  As we go forward, let’s talk more, and look for more opportunities where we can work together.  And when we do disagree—and we will—let’s remember our proud past and what we can accomplish when we work together."



Thanks for pointing up that speech MT I just read it here  (http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5631) This is an exelent speech but I don't see him makeing your point very well.


I grew up in the time and place you are discussing , so with no further reasearch than haveing seen it myself I can tell you that you are only half right.

The Civil Rights movement gained a large step when the black voteing block moved from the Republicans where thay were taken for granted to  the Democrats where they were welcomed as a new thing. Now that the voteing block is taken absolutely and entirely for granted by the Democrats it may be time for them to auction thieir voteing power again to see what they might be bid .

[Plane]

<<However, in this case, MT said that he was "obviously" right and would not hear of any evidence to the contrary.>>

What case are you talking about? 

Reply 74

We were waxing nostalgic for a time when you were in contradiction to the laws of phisics but still held your ground tenaciously.


Tenacity can be a grand virtue, don't loose it.

[Michael Tee]

This is the apology for the Southern Strategy:

<<Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.  I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong. 
<<But if my party benefited from racial polarization in the past, it is the Democratic Party that benefits from it today.>>

I agree with you, plane, it was a less than ringing denunciation of the Southern Strategy.  But it seems to have been taken by headline writers and political commentators as a denunciation of the Southern Strategy and an apology for it, and there was never any further comment from Mehlman denying that interpretation. 

[Amianthus]

What case are you talking about? 

This one - which I note you still have not responded to.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=491.msg4567#msg4567

[Michael Tee]

<<We were waxing nostalgic for a time when you were in contradiction to the laws of phisics but still held your ground tenaciously.>>

Well, first you claim that I would hear no evidence to the contrary, and now you are saying that I held my ground tenaciously.

The fact is that I did hear your "evidence" (I would say, reasoning) to the contrary, but I just didn't find it all that convincing.  I liked my own reasoning better.  The only way I could see to resolving the matter expeditiously was to conduct our own experiments and I am just not that much into it.  If I got burned doing it, I'd have to sue you.

[Amianthus]

The only way I could see to resolving the matter expeditiously was to conduct our own experiments and I am just not that much into it.  If I got burned doing it, I'd have to sue you.

Burning is not required.

The pressure differential for a 12 oz coffee cup amounts to about 88 pounds (40 kilos for you Canucks).

All you have to do is find a 12 oz McDonalds coffee cup that will support 88 pounds without collapsing.

That cup will then support the pressure differential required to cause water at 190 degrees to "spontaneously boil" when the lid is removed.

Incidently, the physical principles required to calculate this are well understood. Reasoning is not required - only table lookups and simple mathematics.

[Plane]

<<We were waxing nostalgic for a time when you were in contradiction to the laws of phisics but still held your ground tenaciously.>>

Well, first you claim that I would hear no evidence to the contrary, and now you are saying that I held my ground tenaciously.

The fact is that I did hear your "evidence" (I would say, reasoning) to the contrary, but I just didn't find it all that convincing.  I liked my own reasoning better.  The only way I could see to resolving the matter expeditiously was to conduct our own experiments and I am just not that much into it.  If I got burned doing it, I'd have to sue you.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh no , just look at that snopes site I found , it does say that a cup of water that is very hot can spring into a boiling state , you were only a little wrong after all ,it can't be done with a coffee urn , it can be done with a microwave .



Back to raceists in the Republican ranks.
The "Southern Strategy " would have given benefit primarily to Richard Nixon , can you find a lot of things that President Nixon did to benefit the cause of White supremicy?

If Nixon made tacit promises to racism , he broke them.

This is a lot like the way that Jimmy Carter became Govenor , Bo Calloway campained with promises of racial harmony and change , if Bo had been elected it would have been a ringing endorsement of civil rights.  Unfortunately for the racists who gravitated to Carter because he was not openly in favor of civil rights , Carter was really just about as determined to institute change as Calloway was he exploited the racist vote and betrayed it.

I think it is true that the Democrats betrayed the racists , it is even true that the Republicans benefited , but not as simply as you might suppose.

Racism represents a shrinking voteing block , even the Dixiecrats didnot amount to enough of a block to elect a president or even a single senator.

If a Racist wants to vote for the cause of White supremicy , he will be hard put to find a canadate on any ballot anywhere in this country where his vote will be sought.

[Michael Tee]

<<If a Racist wants to vote for the cause of White supremicy , he will be hard put to find a canadate on any ballot anywhere in this country where his vote will be sought.>>

Well, that is a problem for the poor racist, the politicians make promises to  him that they won't keep.  It's enough to shake one's faith in human nature.

I was reading an interview with Lee Watsisname, the guy who dreamed up the Willie Horton ads, and he said something pretty interesting, basically that back in the day, racist politics was pretty simple, it was "Nigger, nigger, nigger."  Then the day came when nobody could say "Nigger, nigger, nigger," they had to talk in code words like "states' rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action." So gradually, according to this guy, the debate became more and more abstract.  It moved past states' rights and bussing to even more abstract levels.  Well, this was taken as a sign of progress, and I agree with that assessment. 

The racists are on the wrong side of history, their idea is dying over time, but it will take a long time for it to completely die out and as long as it is still a force, albeit a diminishing one in American society, and particularly in the South, politicians will try to harness it.  Particularly when the country is so evenly divided, the racists can be the swing vote that decides the election.

I don't think the numerical strength of the racist vote is as important as its ability to decide closely fought elections.  And I really believe that the Republicans with their coded and not-so-coded messages are doing everything they can to capture that vote.  The Democrats' hands are tied in going after the same racist votes simply because the large presence of blacks in the Democratikc camp doesn't give them the latitude even to speak in racist code.

[Amianthus]

they had to talk in code words like "states' rights" and "bussing" and "affirmative action."

The Democrats are the ones using the code word "states' rights" now. Does that mean the racists are going back to the Democratic party?

[BT]

The democrats in the form of Al Gore were also the first ones to make an issue of Willie Horton.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Democrats are the ones using the code word "states' rights" now.>>

First I ever heard of it.  What's the context?

[Amianthus]

First I ever heard of it.  What's the context?

They started using it after the 2000 election. When the Supreme Court handed down a verdict they didn't like, all of sudden, Florida should have had the right to decide for itself. It's been used a few times since. Lanya has posted a number of articles using the term, as has Terra.