What do u guys think?

[Jhawkalum]

Are you saying that liberals aren't resourceful, independent, proud and want to succeed without government? I don't know any liberal who has ever said "Gosh, when I get older, I really want to get government handouts."

It obnoxious how Republicans try to paint liberals as people who aren't self-sufficient because they believe in basic human rights (i.e. health care) for everyone.

MSKKG -- How do you expect minorities to be resourceful, independent, proud and successful citizens if their own representatives don't believe they are equal?

Government is supposed to represent people and be a vehicle for positive change. All I see is our Senate Majority leader wanting to taking a step backward.

[moe.ron]

I'm sorry, but liberals "don't trust the American people to make their own decisions." I'm sorry, but i do want all American to make their own decisions. That is why I'm for legalization of drugs, abortion, and I also would like to see an end to corporate welfare and even reducing farm aids so true liberal economic reform can happen.

Sorry, I too am sick of being potrayed as a neo-hippie tree hugging pasifist. I believe in liberal economic policy, that mean lower the tariff and an end to farm and steel subsidies.

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by MSKKG
"Conservative values" as in believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help. With all their talk of wanting to help the "little people," it seems that the liberals don't trust the American people to make their own decisions; therefore, they keep them in their role as dependents on the government.

Do you seriously think that this can be possible?

American people CAN'T be trusted to make our own decisions. We are FAR from capable. On the other hand, gov't is equally uncapable, since we have people like Trent Lott in office.

[Imthechamp]

I think he should run for President...if so, he has my vote.

[33girl]

Dionysus, if you don't believe Americans can make their own decisions, perhaps you should try living in a country where people's decisions really are controlled by the government.

Health care for everyone is not a basic human right. Even if we had government subsidized health care, it most likely wouldn't cover types of alternative medicine that some people believe in using. Those people would be forced to pay taxes for something they are NEVER going to use (and don't compare it to childless people paying school tax - schools help the community) and have to pay on top of it for their health care.

As far as someone's senator or rep not "believing" in them - I honestly don't think that when Lott made his statement, black Mississippians with PhD's and businesses threw up their hands and said "Trent's right!! I'm going to go pick some cotton now." How a representative or senator performs ON THE VOTING FLOOR is what should matter. They are bound to vote as their constituents want them to vote. If they stop doing that, vote their sorry asses out of office. If they are doing that and you want to vote their sorry asses out of office because they are racist jerks, that's fine too.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by Arya
Sorry, I too am sick of being potrayed as a neo-hippie tree hugging pasifist.

That's okay, Arya. I'll gladly do it for you.

[MSKKG]

Jayhawkalum, it's also obnoxious how Democrats paint Republicans as people who want to starve children and old people, destroy the environment, and sit in palatial homes while everybody else is wandering the streets (ever count how many rich Democrats there are, hmm?). We all share the same planet and, I hope, want what's best for society. Everything we do will have an impact on others somehow, someway.

The Democrats, with the help of the liberal media, have promoted class envy. I would be insulted for someone to insinuate that I don't have what it takes to succeed because of my race, sex, creed, etc. (Mentors are not the same as someone doing things for you.) As far as the rich are concerned, I'm glad they are around--the ones who own businesses provide jobs for us all.

Our religious convictions, morals, and experience all play a part in how we form our opinions, and it sounds like we're all pretty well entrenched in our own beliefs. That's great. No two people will think the same--I can't imagine trying to get the whole population to agree on something!

[Jhawkalum]

You're right, your "conservative" upbringing has made you insensitive to a rascist remark. This comment has undermined the same values you say you stand for. But the fact that you can't even realize this is what makes me so sad.

Go ahead and defend Trent Lott, but remember your attitude just reinforces that "Liberal media" stereotype of Southerners.

[MSKKG]

I am not defending Trent Lott in the way you portray. His actual words were not racist from what I've read--people assumed that's what he meant.

I'm sorry that I irritate you so with my "conservative" values and that my upbringing has brought you so much sorrow. I feel your pain. However, if disagreeing with you makes me insensitive, then so be it.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by MSKKG
From what I've heard, I think Mr. Lott was referring to Mr. Thurmond's conservative values and how they would have been better for the country than liberal ones.

"Conservative values" as in believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help. With all their talk of wanting to help the "little people," it seems that the liberals don't trust the American people to make their own decisions; therefore, they keep them in their role as dependents on the government.

MSKKG, I could go with you on this if Lott had actually said something along these lines, something like "Strom Thurmond has been a great proponant of conservative, American values -- values that if we had lived by them for these many years would have made us an even better country." You get the drift.

But that's not what he said. What he said was that the country "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. The reality is that Strom Thurmond didn't run for president espousing "conservative values" like "believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help." Wasn't his concern at all. Thurmond ran on one value and one value only -- segregation of the races had to be maintained at all costs. So, when Lott said that the country "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, then the only way to interpret that statement, without completely straining credulity, is that we "would not have had all of these problem that we've had" if we had remained completely segregated. As I said above, if Lott didn't understand that this is how his statement would be understood, then he is woefully ignorant of American history, as well as woefully bereft of judgment.

Originally posted by MSKKG
... it's also obnoxious how Democrats paint Republicans as people who want to starve children and old people, destroy the environment, and sit in palatial homes while everybody else is wandering the streets (ever count how many rich Democrats there are, hmm?). We all share the same planet and, I hope, want what's best for society. Everything we do will have an impact on others somehow, someway.

The Democrats, with the help of the liberal media, have promoted class envy. I would be insulted for someone to insinuate that I don't have what it takes to succeed because of my race, sex, creed, etc. (Mentors are not the same as someone doing things for you.) As far as the rich are concerned, I'm glad they are around--the ones who own businesses provide jobs for us all.

With all due respect, I would be careful about painting "liberals" with such a broad brush right after you complain about the broad brush conservatives are painted with. (See the quote at the top, too.) No, Republicans don't want to starve old people or children and sit in palatial homes while others wander the street. (At least, most of them don't. ) But neither do Democrats lack trust in the American people to make their own decisions (Again, at least not most of them -- gotta be fair here). Consider the abortion debate as an example.

The fact is that neither conservatives or liberals have monopolies on righteous motives or even good sense. People of good will in both camps have different ideas about what is best for the country, as well as how to get there. Often there is wisdom on both sides, often there is stupidity on both sides. In any event, broadbrush characterizations of liberals or conservatives don't help anybody, except those who place politics above all else.

BTW, it might be worth noting that many of the calls for Lott's resignation as Senate majority leader are coming from conservative Republicans who (1) think he now hurts efforts of thr GOP to reach out to minorities and/or (2) have been dissatisfied with him for years because they don't think he is conservative enough and is too willing to compromise -- now they see an excuse to get rid of him.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Jhawkalum
Rudey --

Are you telling me that I can't post what I believe on this board? Although Strom Thurmond may not have commited a mass genocide of 9 million people, I believe he shares many of the same values of white supremacists.

Don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot say!

Take some vitamins.

-Rudey
--You have a deficiency of some sort.

[IvySpice]

They are bound to vote as their constituents want them to vote. If they stop doing that, vote their sorry asses out of office.

A small but important distinction here. It is true that if the representative's performance doesn't satisfy a majority of the electorate, s/he is in danger of being defeated in the next election. But a representative is NOT bound to vote the way the constituents want. S/he is bound to uphold the Constitution (whatever that means) and fulfill the duties of office to the best of his/her ability (whatever that means). The wisdom, experience, judgment, and common sense of the legislator have everything to do with the votes s/he casts. Senators don't (and shouldn't) just take a poll before voting on every bill. If they did, we could do away with the Senate and just have national referendums on everything.

Edit: The fact that the writers of the Constitution thought personal experience and wisdom was important in elected officials is illustrated by the age requirements for office. Why should representatives have to be over 25, senators over 30, and presidents over 35, unless the founders believed that the more power an official holds, the more experience he needs to use it wisely?

In my opinion, Lott's remarks cast a lot of doubt on his wisdom, experience, judgment, and common sense, as well as on his empathy. The majority of every senator's constituency is non-voters, including children, mentally disabled people, immigrants, and prison inmates, as well as the millions of adult citizens who aren't registered or don't vote. A good senator thinks about all their opinions, not just the opinions of those constituents who will control future elections.

(Due to the way campaigns are structured and funded, it actually takes overwhelming voter disapproval to unseat an incumbent, not just the dissatisfaction of the majority, but that's a separate thread.)

Ivy

[Greekgeezer]

People need to realize that Trent's actions speak just as loud as his words:


-At University of Mississippi and on a national level he fought against the integration of Sigma Nu

-Lott said "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," in reference to Bob Jones University's policy on interracial dating.

-1983, Lott was one of 90 House members who voted against creating a national holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

-1989, Lott was one of seven senators who voted to abolish the King holiday commission, and in 1994, he was one of 28 who favored scrapping its federal funding.

- He voted against the Voting Rights Act in the early '90s

- In 1995, Lott criticized Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., for intervening with 39 other lawmakers to get the FBI to release documents in the 1966 death of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer to county prosecutors.

- He was the lone vote against President Bush's nomination of a black judge last year

- He has only one black employee, a mail clerk, out of a staff of 65. Half of Lott's constituents are black.

This isn't a liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat issue, either. It's a respect issue. This man obviously doesn't respect blacks.

If you don't like a poster's comments -- then notify a moderator. Asking people if they have vitamin deficiencies because they defend their posting rights is a lame come back.

[shadokat]

Right or wrong, Trent Lott made a statement that has hurt his credibility and his integrity in our system of government. And all those folks come out of the woodwork and say he should resign. I wonder if you're all the same folks who thought Bill Clinton should resign for cheating on his wife by having improper relations with another White House employee? Sorry, but if you want to smack the hands of one person for their wrongdoings and moral lapses, smack all the hands.

33girl said it best in her post, as usual! Amen girl!

[Rudey]

What else is lame? Hey pot, notify a moderator before calling my comments lame.

And whomever felt they needed to defend their posting rights should fully enlist an international army complete with non-conventional weaponry to defend these rights...you know because people actually questioned their posting rights.

-Rudey
--Lame...what a quaint word. Now people shouldn't get side-tracked by "lame" comments and continue discussing Lott.

Originally posted by Greekgeezer
If you don't like a poster's comments -- then notify a moderator. Asking people if they have vitamin deficiencies because they defend their posting rights is a lame come back.