Where's the outrage now Democrats?

I can do no more. All you do is accuse me of being dishonest, as hard as I try.

I think you don't have the intellectual honesty to believe someone can disagree with you.

Intellectual honesty has to do with the means by which someone reaches a conclusion and not a decree on what conclusion should be reached.

Example of intellectual dishonesty:

Spinning data to reflect a desired conclusion.

Determining that a conclusion must be reached to exhibit intellectual honesty is the anti-thesis to intellectual honesty and flies in the face of scientific method.

If you want to make the case for intellectual dishonesty you must do so using as the basis the dishonest ratiocination and not the conclusion.

The use of tactics such as the emperor's new clothes ploy is intellectual dishonesty.

There's been a surfeit of illegal hyphenation lately. Cease and desist! In modern usage, a hyphen does not dwell in the home of antithesis.

I don't think either of the two was much ado about nothing, though in Dodd's case it is a little harder to know for sure what he meant but I think he said what sofia said he said which was that Bryd would have been a good leader in any time and if he would have a good at any time then he would have been a klu klux member and advocate racism, on the other hand he might not have meant that he might of meant that byrd would have made a good leader in any time with no thought about his previous klux klan membership in his mind when he made that statement. Though that would have been a weird statement all the way around and I think it more likely that Dodd knew what he was hinting at and was trying to give his support of such a stance without concrete statements that people could later call him up on. But maybe that is giving the man too much "karl Row" (?) credit.

The reason I don't think either would be much ado about nothing is if Dodd's falls into Trent's side is because both would like it if ideas such as segregation and other racist beliefs were still in practice today. If Thurmand had won his presidency then he would have been in a position to really push his racist beliefs and Trent wished that had happened which says a lot about he wishes things were today. Who wants such a man in a position to pass legislation or to be in a position to say what is going to be on the agenda for the time that congress in session? He should have been run out of town, but we are a in a democracy and it is up to the voters to decide that next time he is up for reelection. If Dodd meant what it appears he meant then he thinks Bryd was just a leader when he was a klu klan member as today when he is not, which I guess in the end does it make it different than trent's statement but is a really silly statement and it would make him a racist which is not a quality good to have in a person in a position that effect our laws.

Maybe the reason that a lot of people are not outraged is because they realize that Dodd must be not very bright and since he is not in a high position with a lot authority like Trent Lott was so it is not very newsworthy. Plus when you try to peice together what he meant it just gets too dumb. Maybe someone should just ask him to explain what he meant by statement because as it is now it is not clear and then voters can make up their minds about whether to keep him in congress or not. Personally I feel like Joe Nation, let him go.

Quote:
"Maybe someone should just ask him to explain what he meant by statement.."

Revel, could you explain what you meant by your statements? :wink:

Forgive me, but wasent Lott forced out by his own republican party for politicle reasons.

Watch it! The repubs are experts at moving the target from their own to the "other side." They have one weakness; which is their inability to admit wrong.

My personal feeling about Dodd the man is neutral. It has nothing to do with the question at hand. I happen to think people are bending over backward to be honest to the extent their backbones are in danger of sustaining some severe damage. I can't believe anyone would throw Dodd to the wolves on the strength of statements too nebulous to be proven as racist in intent, which indeed were in my reading of them not intended in that light at all. It would be easy to read political motives in the slavering words of a few on this thread, but some may be acting from motives of political correctness (a term I despise and have never applied in conversation to anyone in the past).

It is true that Lott was deserted by his own party, because his words were indefensible. You don't see the furor over Dodd's words at all.

revel writes:


And there is no empirical or objective evidence that either Dodd or Lott are adovocates or promoters of segregation or racism today.

When Lott praised Thurmond, it was on the occasion of Thurmond's 100th birthday. He had been in public service his entire adult life. Early on Thurmond was a Democrat and passionate segregationist, along with virtually 100% of the Democrat party. Over the years, like everybody else, he has grown and changed his views about many things including segregation and racism. Thurmond was a front runner in congress by being among the very first to hire and give opportunity to minorities and women on his staff and he became a powerful advocate for minorities. It was the present Strom Thurmond whom Lott was praising and not the racist.

When Dodd praised Byrd, it was on the occasion of Byrd's 17000th vote. Byrd has also been in public service most of his adult life and, when he went into politics, he was in the KKK eventually achieving the high rank of Grand Kleagle. He actively opposed and voted against the civil rights act of 1964. He also grew and changed over the years and has also renounced his earlier views including regretting that 1964 vote. It was the present Robert Byrd that Dowd was praising and not the racist. Byrd's own track record of hiring women and minorities has not been as exemplary as Thurmond's however and just in the last year he was criticized for using the 'N' word in public.

Lott stepped down as his party's leader after his remarks were criticized by President Bush, former Vice President Al Gore and civil rights leader Jesse Jackson. It was quoted in the press that some democrats said they 'could just look into Lott's heart and see racism.' Lott remains in the Senate.

Republicans have protested the gross double standard here, but, to their credit, they are not demanding Dowd's head which, in my opinion, is the intellectually honest approach. Two wrongs would not make a right.

Word.

wrong word.

Don't make me come over there, EB!

Ha! You will never convince me I'm wrong about this.

I wouldn't even presume to try edgar. Every now and then somebody from the left or center actually does debate on the merits of an issue and it is these to whom I speak.

Fox

If that is an acusation that I did not debate the merits I can only conclude that you wish to be vindictive rather than discuss. If by repeating the same information again and again you think this makes your case the better one, it don't work like that. I have refuted everything you have said. You have to come up with something more or the debate is over. Making personal references does not advance your argument the slightest and even makes you appear to have less certainty of your position than you are attempting to project.

Okay Edgar. I took a cheap shop there and I apologize. But may I respectfully point out that you have provided nothing to back up your opinion? Your opinion is that Lott and Thurmond are somehow more culpable than are Byrd and Dowd as racist or supporting racism. I did my best to show how a double standard was employed. I can only conclude that if you cannot see a double standard used in this issue, you simple don't want to. So we'll just leave it at that.

The language is all we have to base our argument on, since we can't see into Dodd's head. Although his sentences are a bit nebulous, there is no "smoking gun" and to me there is no reason to conclude Dodd wanted to write his own obituary by hailing the young Byrd. It is my assessment that he was clearly referring to the Byrd sitting in the same room with him. No jury would convict a person based on that kind of language. It would take some kind of back up evidence.

Point well taken, Edgar.

The point is that Dowd, in his enthusiasm to praise his old friend, made a statement that taken literally could be construed to be insensitive. He apologized for it. His colleagues on both sides of the aisle accepted it as an unintentional gaff and that was that.

Trent Lott, in his enthusiasm to praise an old friend, made a statement that taken literally could be construed to be insensitive. He apologized for it....dozens of times in as many venues as would let him....explained that he did not intend it at all the way it was interpreted.

But the democrats demanded his head and he was forced to give up his senate majority position.

That's the double standard.