I'm ****ing sick of this!!

[Klostrophobic]

Since when is being a racist grounds for being forced to step down? So he has different view from most people, as well as mine, but if he wants to be a non-violent racist, I couldn't care less.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Since when is being a racist grounds for being forced to step down? So he has different view from most people, as well as mine, but if he wants to be a non-violent racist, I couldn't care less.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. A legislator's beliefs will dictate and affect his or her actions. A racist legislator will vote as a racist. Period.

 

[Klostrophobic]

So, is it illegal to do so?

I'm not a racist, but I see nothing wrong with someone having different views than me. Unless this guys impedes on basic civil rights and such for blacks and minorities he is racist towards, I've got nothing wrong with him. Even if I think his views are a little crazy.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. A legislator's beliefs will dictate and affect his or her actions. A racist legislator will vote as a racist. Period.

Did you not see what I said? Trent Lott has voted based on his 'racial bias' only in two situations in his entire political career, neither in the last thirteen years. The man's clean. Quit being a blind Democrat and think for yourself.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by M5Power


Did you not see what I said? Trent Lott has voted based on his 'racial bias' only in two situations in his entire political career, neither in the last thirteen years. The man's clean. Quit being a blind Democrat and think for yourself.

Oh . . . I definitely saw what you said. I just happened to know you were wrong. Lott regularly votes against legislation that expands civil rights for blacks, gays, and women.

Quit being a narrow-minded Republican and do some research.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Since when is being a racist grounds for being forced to step down? So he has different view from most people, as well as mine, but if he wants to be a non-violent racist, I couldn't care less. [/Q]

You must have a very narrow definition of violence.

Powerful men using their power to deprive on group while another lives to excess is violent, not mention malevolent. Also, privately condoning the violence perpetrated by those with less to loose is violent. One need not have blood on their hands to be violent.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Okay, I guess that is violent.

I wasn't aware that he was doing all this. But I guess I should be aware, since all politicians do it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Okay, I guess that is violent.

I wasn't aware that he was doing all this. But I guess I should be aware, since all politicians do it.

It's insideous. 😈

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


Oh . . . I definitely saw what you said. I just happened to know you were wrong. Lott regularly votes against legislation that expands civil rights for blacks, gays, and women.

Quit being a narrow-minded Republican and do some research.

First off, I said (and the debate issue here is) racial bias. By the absolutely brilliant link that you provided, you actually prove me wrong -- he used his racial bias in voting on legislation exactly ZERO TIMES. I rescind my statement. Trent Lott is better than I thought. I do apologise. Lesson: Read your evidence before stating it.

By the way - all those issues were party-line issues.

 

[TAFJonathan]

• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
  
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
  
• Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Blacks = a minority.
Affirmative action = for blacks.
:reallyodd

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper

• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
  
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
  
• Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Blacks = a minority.
Affirmative action = for blacks.
:reallyodd

Affirmative action isn't necessarily for blacks, for one, and was actually originally drawn up as state law in the western states for Hispanics. On top of that, both Jesse E Jackson and Dr Al Sharpton want affirmative action ended - it provides an unfair advantage to black business owners, they say, which the black business owners don't need because they do the job just as well anyway.

Let me ask you a question - special funding for minority and women owned businesses. Aside from the fact that not all women are black, do women and minority owned businesses need special funding? Alotting special funding toward minority and women-owned businesses sounds like money segregation, to me. It definitely should've been ended whenever that issue came up.

Setting aside 10% of the highway fund for minorities and women? Are you just going to hand minorities and women 10% of the Federal Highway Fund? Is it safe to assume that the other 90% of the Federal Highway Fund go to white males? Sounds like a pretty skewed deal, no?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.

Good move, why should 10% of highway funds be given to women and minorities?

Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business

Special funding for minority and women-owned businesses? What about all the other businesses? Don't they deserve special funding as well?

Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds

Thank God. Affirmative action is ****. It just isn't fair to the more qualified white males. For instance, there is a job opening where you need to type 60 WPM, there is a white male who can type 95 WPM, and a black woman who can type 65 WPM. Who should get the job.

Just abolish all this special funding bullshit and give EVERYONE a fair chance at everything.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by M5Power


Affirmative action isn't necessarily for blacks, for one, and was actually originally drawn up as state law in the western states for Hispanics. On top of that, both Jesse E Jackson and Dr Al Sharpton want affirmative action ended - it provides an unfair advantage to black business owners, they say, which the black business owners don't need because they do the job just as well anyway.

Let me ask you a question - special funding for minority and women owned businesses. Aside from the fact that not all women are black, do women and minority owned businesses need special funding? Alotting special funding toward minority and women-owned businesses sounds like money segregation, to me. It definitely should've been ended whenever that issue came up.

Setting aside 10% of the highway fund for minorities and women? Are you just going to hand minorities and women 10% of the Federal Highway Fund? Is it safe to assume that the other 90% of the Federal Highway Fund go to white males? Sounds like a pretty skewed deal, no?

I concede . . . politically, on those points, I agree with you for the most part. Nonetheless -- it is my impression that Lott has been ineffective as a leader. He hasn't stood out as a person who can do good for our country.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper


I concede . . . politically, on those points, I agree with you for the most part. Nonetheless -- it is my impression that Lott has been ineffective as a leader. He hasn't stood out as a person who can do good for our country.

But was Tom Daschle effective?

Both men do a good job getting what's necessary done for their party, frankly.

 

[milefile]

I was just listening to the news and it seems like it's getting worse. Lott really ****ed up . That's why you're supposed to think before you open your mouth.

Anyway, I guess the Republicans are having a meeting on 1/6/03 to determine Lott's fate, maybe earlier. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Ya know when you look back at your life and pick things you maybe wish you hadn't said...?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Yeah, I think I said 'Yes' one too many times. Now I'm bleeding out of one of my orifices.

 

[milefile]

Which one?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Guess.

 

[1X83Z]

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by M5Power


Affirmative action isn't necessarily for blacks, for one, and was actually originally drawn up as state law in the western states for Hispanics.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it was developed under the Johnson administration in the late '60s . . . can you give me a source for your fact?

BTW . . . MOD: this should go in Current Events. Why hasn't it been moved?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TAFJonathan


Actually, I'm pretty sure that it was developed under the Johnson administration in the late '60s . . . can you give me a source for your fact?

Johnson first mentioned the name itself in 1961 (and it was signed in to law in 1964), but it was held under a different name before then; something like 'race equality,' originally promoting workers' rights for Mexican immigrants during World War II then extending the rights once Mexicans (I believe) began to realise what an opportunity it was. California signed it into law first, as I recall.

BTW . . . MOD: this should go in Current Events. Why hasn't it been moved?

Jordan's voiced concerns in the past over relative popularity the current events forum, so he's basically okay with starting current events in either forum.