Democrats to Vote for Klansman as President

[fatcatfan]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010303/content/truth_detector.guest.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20021216/cm_usatoday/4703456


My friends, I want you to hand out, read over the phone and e-mail this article across the fruited plain, because something big is going to happen next week when the Senate elects a president pro tempore - the man three heartbeats away from the presidency! The vice president is first in line and the speaker of the House is second under the 1947 Presidential Succession Act.

The Democrats will nominate for this position, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who just six months ago used the N-word multiple times on Fox News. In his youth, Byrd was not only a member of the evil Ku Klux Klan, he held the position of Kleagle! As Kleagle, Byrd received $10 a hood for every new member he recruited into the terrorist organization that burned crosses, lynched blacks and burned churches.

Will Democrat Senators and presidential candidates Tom Daschle, John Kerry-Heinz, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman be forced to account for their votes to put this man in line for the presidency? Don't count on it. Just as Byrd didn't have to resign as president pro tem when he made this statement on Fox, he won't be criticized when his nomination is made. I would love to see Byrd on TV fulminating, explaining and apologizing for that white N-word like Lott had to apologize for his statements, but it'll never happen.

[AtmaWeapon]

I bet he thinks Strom Thurmond would make a good president too.

Trent Lott was a spineless bastard, and looky! The dems who were attacking him are now putting someone worse in a position of power.

[El Oso Verde]

*shrugs* I don't plan on voting for the jackass. I think it's kind of irrational to assume that ALL people who tend to vote democratic would support some jerk like this. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would. http://users3.ev1.net/~fontlady/nick/smileys/mmeek.gif

[AtmaWeapon]

Actually, he's being nominated by his party; this is not an election that the public votes in.

[Starkist]

Not President of the US, President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Ironically, this is the position left vacant by the retiring Strom Thurmond.

[AtmaWeapon]

Heh. Funny choice to replace him.

[Rijuhn]

How can something like this happen? Why am I just now hearing about this in detail? I remember seeing stuff about this on the news a few weeks back, but I still don't understand that he is up for election. Doesn't anyone care he's racist, or in other words, someone who believes their hatred of minorities is justified. Many of them also believe that God doesn't like n******, jews, etc.

I've seen several documentaries(sp?) on the Ku Klux Klan, and they are not nice people. Someone speak up about this, I don't want to feel like I'm the only one that cares.

[Dart Zaidyer]

The media only reports what they want you to hear, therefore they don't want you to know about this until it's too late. Which means they must be racist bastards, too.

[Ich]

The media is very liberal biased. Look at the way they put the failing economy reports after the successful war on terrorism reports. They don't like Bush as much as Clinton, and Bush isn't a womanizer. They tend to emphasize that the liberals/democrats are right. Like Al Gore's quest for the truth about the vote in Florida back in 2000. Or, his inability to admit defeat and realize that the American people don't want a democrat in government. In the land of liberals, hypocrisy is :king:.

[C-Dawg]

Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS
The media is very liberal biased.

Sure is easier to appeal to right-wing propoganda than just come out and admit that politicians get thier jobs based on back-scratching and the good-ol'boy system, huh.


Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS

Look at the way they put the failing economy reports after the successful war on terrorism reports.

Here you have a valid point. The fact that our economy is foundering after a decade of prosperity, that our national debt is swelling after we had a surplus just a few years ago... these are not newsworthy events. When people lose thier jobs and major businesses collapse or go bankrupt, its only those left-wing wackos who think the news should inform people about it.

The war on terrorism is far more important coverage, isnt it? We, the people worried about when the next disciple of bin ladin will destroy something- so when a country tries to get weapons of mass destruction, we need to invade them and kill their leaders. Er, unless it's North Korea, because that nation is special. These nations who are emulating our own actions are acting irrationally and counter to the best interests of everyone! The logical link between stopping non-national terrorist groups and attacking sovergin nations is simple and any American can make it while watching bombs drop from a TV in McDonalds.


Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS

They don't like Bush as much as Clinton, and Bush isn't a womanizer.

Heaven forbid, the man liked to get his knob slobbed. And the media totally covered that up, didnt they? There was no coverage of any Clinton scandals at ALL during his election.


Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS

They tend to emphasize that the liberals/democrats are right. Like Al Gore's quest for the truth about the vote in Florida back in 2000. Or, his inability to admit defeat and realize that the American people don't want a democrat in government.

Right again. Gore won the national popular vote, but the TRUE voice of the American people is what the Supreme Court said.


Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS

In the land of liberals, hypocrisy is :king:. .

Oh, but why even say it? Your logic so far hsa been so irrefutable that your conclusion could go unsaid. But kudos anyway- we really need to keep those darn big-city people, with their damn big-city educations down. They think they're smarter than us? That alone is reason to reject everything they stand for.

-C

[Starkist]

Al Gore may of won the popular vote, but he was trying to subvert Florida state law and win the election at all costs. It was the Florida State Supreme Court that was most helpful in such a subversion too. The Supreme Court had no choice but to put a stop to it all.

What I would like to know is what the major media outlets think about Patty Murray and her praise of Osama bin Laden. She claimed to a group of high school students in Vancouver that bin Laden builds roads and daycares and such, and thus is more popular in the world than us. It is one thing to make statements like that to make people think, but it is another to make statements like that when they are totally false. However, the same media and the same politicians that would not let Trent Lott off the hook barely batted an eyelash at Ms. Murray. She is the subject of many opinion pages here in Washington though.

[MottZilla]

Originally posted by ICHBINDASWALROSS
The media is very liberal biased. Look at the way they put the failing economy reports after the successful war on terrorism reports. They don't like Bush as much as Clinton, and Bush isn't a womanizer. They tend to emphasize that the liberals/democrats are right. Like Al Gore's quest for the truth about the vote in Florida back in 2000. Or, his inability to admit defeat and realize that the American people don't want a democrat in government. In the land of liberals, hypocrisy is :king:.

Considering the election was so narrowly won, your statement is inaccurate.

The media now, it's sad they are taken so seriously. It proves hw stupid people are.

[C-Dawg]

What is really sad is how politicians have convinced people that whatever the media, an instrumental and monumentally important tool of our democracy, tells them is somehow MORE biased than what politicians, who have an undeniable stake in making themselves look good, say. Exactly at what point did certain elements of the right wing decide that people giving them the facts were less reliable than those who professionally spit out spin?

-C

[Starkist]

The media spins as much as politicians. How many times has the NY Times put out a poll, slanted the results, and plastered it on the front page as 'news' ?

[AtmaWeapon]

Originally posted by C-Dawg
What is really sad is how politicians have convinced people that whatever the media, an instrumental and monumentally important tool of our democracy, tells them is somehow MORE biased than what politicians, who have an undeniable stake in making themselves look good, say. Exactly at what point did certain elements of the right wing decide that people giving them the facts were less reliable than those who professionally spit out spin?

-C

All I say about the media comes from observations I've recently made. Here's the last few things that I don't like that the media has done.


Remember those guys who scared that lady because they were joking around and talking about how "if Americans thought 9/11 was bad..." and stuff? I remember going to three different news web sites (cnn.com, msnbc.com, and yahoo news) and I found that all three web sites had an entirely different quoted story from the men. One site had the men quoted as "just joking around"; another quoted the men as saying "We never said anything of the sort". So, one news site was lying.
October 2001: "President Bush knew some kind of terrorist attack was going to happen and didn't take any action to prevent it."
October 2002: "President Bush and his supporters are being too paranoid and need to quit giving us false alarms of attacks."
The media spent days bashing Trent Lott, talking about what a horrible racist he was and how he should leave the senate. The day he stepped down, NBC news had a 10-minute segment where they listed EVERY good thing he had ever done in office, and they even interviewed 4 or 5 black Mississippians who claimed, "It's a shame he stepped down; there was no need".


Politicians are two-faced, yes; but so is the media. You can't believe either. The best thing to do is look at every source available; somewhere among that information lies the truth.

[Happyman]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
Politicians are two-faced, yes; but so is the media. You can't believe either. The best thing to do is look at every source available; somewhere among that information lies the truth. Yes, I'd agree that's the best thing to do...but how do you know where the truth lies?

[AtmaWeapon]

You just have to guess. In particular, if two or three places that usually disagree say basically the same thing, you know that that could be truth.