View Full Version : Trent Lott Resigns
nickel
12-20-2002, 10:14 AM
not saying he didn't mean it the way it sounded but he's lynched so he might as well throw it in.
Grimm
12-20-2002, 10:31 AM
Politicians say things all the time that should end their careers. The press only chooses to chalenge a few of them for some reason.
I hope Mississipi recalls Trent Lott. If he was a CA senator I would be trying to collect signatures right now to force a reacll election. I doubt the residents of Mississippi will bother to do so. I fear that he actualy does represent the views of a large number of Mississippi residents. :(
eSDee
12-20-2002, 10:48 AM
That's gotta be pretty embarassing and sad for his state. But oh well don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
I hope he leaves the Senate soon too. As far as I'm concerned, the more career politicians we lose, the better off we'll be. It's high time we had more average-Joe citizens in public office instead of power-hungry (insert derogatory term here).
-OC
TERRIBLETOM
12-20-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by overclocked
As far as I'm concerned, the more career politicians we lose, the better off we'll be. It's high time we had more average-Joe citizens in public office instead of power-hungry (insert derogatory term here).
-OC
I'm all for that...
molecularfire
12-21-2002, 01:05 PM
Not that I'm not glad to be rid of pretty much any politician, but here's a question... Yes, Trent Lott is a racist... that is pretty obvious, but don't racist people have a right to their opinions? I mean if he wouldn't hire someone because of his race then I could understand... but what happened to the first amendment?
Originally posted by molecularfire
Not that I'm not glad to be rid of pretty much any politician, but here's a question... Yes, Trent Lott is a racist... that is pretty obvious, but don't racist people have a right to their opinions? I mean if he wouldn't hire someone because of his race then I could understand... but what happened to the first amendment? The issue was never about free speech - the issue was (is) the kind of leader Lott is. If I was a Republican, I sure as hell wouldn't want a racist in a leadership position in my party.
I think most of us can agree that racism is wrong. After what Lott said at Thurmonds birthday party, if the Republicans had done nothing about, they'd be sending the message that they support racism.
-OC
molecularfire
12-21-2002, 02:11 PM
Ah... I see. The issue is whether we agree with what is being said. If people say what we like, then they have a right to free speech. If they don't then they don't. I see. :rolleyes:
whitak24
12-21-2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by molecularfire
Ah... I see. The issue is whether we agree with what is being said. If people say what we like, then they have a right to free speech. If they don't then they don't. I see. :rolleyes:
no, you're totally mis-construing the argument and the issue.
this has nothing to do with free speech. it has nothing to do with freedom of expression. it has EVERYTHING to do with leadership.
trent lott can think whatever he wants. and he can say whatever the hell he wants. but that doesn't mean that the republicans in the senate, or the people of mississippi, should allow him to be their leader. it also doesn't mean that i have to respect him.
if he wants to be a racist, then in my opinion, he can also be an unemployed son of a bitch. or he can work for one of the racist groups that he's buddied up with over the years. if they want to hire him in spite of (or more likely, because of) his racist beliefs, then that is their perrogative.
but conversely, because the republicans in the senate decided that they did not want a racist as a leader, then it was fully within their rights to remove him (or as was the case here, he was smart enough to resign before being removed). in addition, if the people of mississippi do not want him representing them, then they should recall him.
no one is suggesting that he be stopped from speaking. no one is claiming that he should be jailed for his beliefs. this is NOT an assult on free speech. this is an assult on racism (or at least on one person who was stupid enough to announce his racist feelings to the rest of the world).
Ladogaboy
12-21-2002, 08:20 PM
I completely agree with what molecularfire said.
The fact is, Trent Lott was forced to resign because of what he said, not what he believed. He shouldn't be punished or forced into retirement for what he said: he should just never be elected again. It is the Mississippi voters' faults for electing him in the first place, and if they didn't check his background before they voted, that's their own damn faults. Too bad. I'm sure that there are many Republicans and Democrats alike that agree with Lott's views, but as long as they don't say anything publicly, their positions are secure. :shrug:
Oh, and he's not my leader. Neither are any of the other politicians in this country.
TofuNinja
12-21-2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by molecularfire
Ah... I see. The issue is whether we agree with what is being said. If people say what we like, then they have a right to free speech. If they don't then they don't. I see. :rolleyes:
Do you even know what free speech is? Free speech is a great responsibility to have and use. Trent Lott has teh freedom to say what ever he pleases, so do all Americans. However, with such a freedom comes the owning of what you say. Trent Lott is free to say that he feels blacks and white should not mix. That is his views and itis perfectly ok for him to say that. Now, because he represents more people than just himself, his state, his political party, and because he is in a position to change and create national policy, there are certain people who feel that these views may cause him to vote a certain way. Trent Lott represents the state of Mississippi, that's means all the whites, blacks, asians, mexicans, you name it, if they live in Mississippi, he represents them. He also represents the Republican party who does not want to be labled a racist party or is trying to fight that image.
If trent Lott told TOfuNinja at a party that he is all for seperate but equal crap, then perhaps it wouldn't have stung so much, but he told the nation for the most part. True the media most likely made more out of it then they shoudl have, being that J Lo is still dating Ben, the Lakers are still losing, and nothing else has been going on, but Trent Lott had to put his Money where he wouth went this time.
TofuNinja
12-21-2002, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Ladogaboy
I completely agree with what molecularfire said.
The fact is, Trent Lott was forced to resign because of what he said, not what he believed. He shouldn't be punished or forced into retirement for what he said: he should just never be elected again. It is the Mississippi voters' faults for electing him in the first place, and if they didn't check his background before they voted, that's their own damn faults. Too bad. I'm sure that there are many Republicans and Democrats alike that agree with Lott's views, but as long as they don't say anything publicly, their positions are secure. :shrug:
Oh, and he's not my leader. Neither are any of the other politicians in this country.
Quick question.... do you think the average American actually gives a damn to to research on who they vote for? More then 50% of Americans don't even give a damn to vote let alone do research. Heck in Florida they didn't know how to work election equipment...That is the problem with a system that systematically disenchants their voters.
Cantacuzene
12-21-2002, 09:59 PM
whitak is 100% right.
Originally posted by Cantacuzene
whitak is 100% right. :stupid:
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It's still illegal to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater.
It's a shame people can't separate unpopular opinions from free speech.
-OC
Ladogaboy
12-21-2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by TofuNinja
Quick question.... do you think the average American actually gives a damn to to research on who they vote for?
No. In fact, I know that they don't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that they SHOULD, and if they don't, then what happens in government is their own damn faults.
whitak24
12-22-2002, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Ladogaboy
The fact is, Trent Lott was forced to resign because of what he said, not what he believed.
exactly.
however, you err in suggesting that is an assult on his free speech rights.
as majority leader of the senate, trent lott has a job. among many other duties relating to the operation of the senate, his job is to be the key spokesman for republicans in the senate, and by extension, the republican party as a whole.
if he starts failing in that role as a spokesman, and starts advocating views with which his caucus disagrees, then they are totally within their rights to remove him from that position.
it's just the same as if he suddenly decided to start advocating policies endorsed by the democrats. the republicans could decide he was no longer representing them properly and remove him.
if you're spokesman for GM, and you tell the press "we're an evil company that likes to make vehicles that emit high levels of pollution and burn lots of fossil fuels", do you think you're going to keep your job long? no. why? because when you're a spokesman, a representative, you have to properly represent the views of the organization for which you speak. and if you stop doing that, then they can dispose of you.
i hate to belabor this point, but i think to turn this into a free speech issues cheapens free speech rights and confuses the principle of free speech.
Ladogaboy
12-22-2002, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by whitak24
exactly.
however, you err in suggesting that is an assult on his free speech rights.
Yes, I probably should have explained why I agreed with molecularfire a little more clearly. Now, looking back on it, I think I read something into it that might not have been there. :hmm:
My main concern with this is that it should be the responsibility of the people who had voted for him to have him removed from office, not that of his peers. Of course, half the population probably doesn't even know what he said, let alone the significance. :rolleyes:
whitak24
12-22-2002, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Ladogaboy
My main concern with this is that it should be the responsibility of the people who had voted for him to have him removed from office, not that of his peers.
agreed. but remember, he peers are not removing him from office. simply removing him from the leadership position that they elected him to.
Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Of course, half the population probably doesn't even know what he said, let alone the significance. :rolleyes:
double agreement there. people are sad :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.