Archive through December 17, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Trent Lott (ARCHIVE): Archive through December 17, 2002

Zachsmom

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 07:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Good gravy..

my heart breaks for those who he's hurt.

Goddessatlaw

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:04 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bastable: no, but Byrd's one of the most visible Democrats that ever lived. If racism is the subject, let's just rid ourselves of all of it (I mean it) and examine all of the voting records of all of the members of the Senate and House. Let's fix it. Lott, Byrd, Thurmond (although he's out already, and who's going to attack a centenarian), etc. etc. Racism is racism, appearance or for real, and if it's good for Lott, it's good for all voting members of the Congress. Could it be a reckoning in reverse of the Clinton effect? "Oh, crap, better not say much because they might look at ME, and my hands are NOT clean!!!" Byrd was a card-carrying member of the KKK. Let's hear about him for awhile.

Squaredsc

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
the byrd issue is scary too. and im sure his hood is still in his closet for just the right occassion(sp).

'mom, yeah he said it. he couldn't say it fast enough. his responses were full of sh*t.

gal, its not going to get fixed in the next 100 years i believe with all of my heart and soul.

Bastable

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
When I hear people bring up Byrd, I already fear that we're missing the point. Some folks bring him up as if to say, "Well, the Democrats have bad folks, too. Let's talk about THEM now!"

That misses the point. Partisan debates are the opiate of our political system.

The point is that evil racist rascals have positions of power in our government. As do crooked politicians who are the lackeys of corporate greed. If the halls of Washington have space for scoundrels like Lott, Thurmond, and Byrd, who else is there, too, in plain sight?

How can these people have careers at all? How have they been able to earn the respect of their fellow congressment and constituents, over so many years? Republican, Democrat, whatever--something is very wrong with our leaders if people who clearly don't believe in ALL of the Constitution are allowed to garner such respect over so many years, when their histories have ALWAYS been out in the open. It's only this week, suddenly, that people have thought to complain.

I think that speaks just as poorly of voters as it does politicians. I will not let party squabbles deflect my attention from the fact that Washington has grown very corrupt indeed. If these guys have been allowed to slide for all these years, what else is going on right now, under our noses?

And why aren't voters rejecting these opportunists?

Goddessatlaw

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Squared: I have read all of your posts, and I don't want you to think that they're going unheeded. It's just that, as a white American, I feel unable to provide commentary in what could be considered a meaningful and unhurtful dialogue on a subject which is clearly very personal and painful to you. There is a level on which, as a female, I can relate to prejudical stigma. But that only goes so far. It is not the same, sexual prejudice and racial prejudice. I wish that racism truly were a thing of the past, and I do think that current generations are reaching that point in the post-civil rights era, but unfortunately we must still deal with our parents' era of politicians who grew up in different circumstances. It doesn't make it right, but they remain a factor in our political system for awhile at least. I just wanted to say I respect your posts, and I understand your hurt. But it will not always be like this. We have a great future of leaders upcoming, ones who were not raised in a segregationist and prejudiced system. There will be an African American president, and there will be a female president, and these events will happen in our lifetimes. I don't think they will be elected BECAUSE they are either of these things, but because they are the best people for the job. Fingers crossed, always hopeful.

Squaredsc

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
gal, you did provide commentary that i certainly consider meaningful and unhurtful. and i and im very sure others think so too. everyone is entitled to their opinion, hence this site. even if its positive or negative regarding the subject.

im also glad that you are so optimistic and hopefully these things do come to pass.

Goddessatlaw

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bastable, you're exactly right. But our electorate is at an increasingly aged majority. They've been raised in a different era under different rules which changed against what may have been their wishes. This is not an apology, just a fact. Not right, but the way they see it. The fact that "everybody has a racist in the closet" doesn't make it right. I'm for cleaning house. Let's get it out, let's have a dialogue, let's clean house. Unfortunately, though, with a true racist, you can talk 'til you're blue in the face and it doesn't change anything. Gotta start at the beginning, gotta start young. The progress is there - the educational and civic tools are in motion. With a little patience I'm pretty sure we're going to have it licked.

Squaredsc

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
bastable, unfortunately a lot of people just don't vote and don't care anymore. which means that the powers that be can keep things going on under our noses.

Fluff

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Lott is a nut. A nasty nut. He said on the Ed Gordon show that he is for affirmative action! Disgusting piece of.......

Grooch

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
<<Well I am origainally from Mississippi, and I can say that most folks there think more realistically than "what can be". And realistically nothing is going to happen to him, nor will it cost him his seat. Black folks don't vote for him in Mississippi, but then again they dont vote for much of anybody else. More specificially they dont really care, I know I dont care. Here is why, nothing changes, from president of the US down to SGA president. No one does anything, they all make promises that they never keep. >>

Well, the people from Missippi have more power than they think they have, and they should vote.

If the person in power does nothing for them, than at the very least, they can vote for the opposition (whether or not they think that person is any better or not.) This way it is sending a message to the person in office that if he/she doesn't listen to the people, then that politician may very well be out of office the next election vote.

Bastable

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
And let's not forget how so many black people have been disenfranchised due to unfair felony laws. After you serve your penalty in America, you're STILL often not allowed to vote. That's gone a long way toward boosting the power base of people like Lott (or, more accurately, reducing the opposition).

Goddessatlaw

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Can of worms, HELLO!! big*ss can of worms there, Bastable. Changing threads.

Bastable

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well, you can't ask how avowed racists stay in power without asking how avowed racists stay in power, y'know?

Crossfire

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP

Quote:

After you serve your penalty in America, you're STILL often not allowed to vote.




What's the deal with this?

Fluff

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
LOL @ Bastable. Preach it!

Anyways, I don't think black people should be the only ones offended by Lott's words. Lott said something about there wouldn't have been all this mess. Well....what mess? All that this country has worked for, not just for blacks, but minorities, and women.... And it's a mess?

Dummy.

Suitsmefine

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I say we take Mr. Lott to the wood shed.

Fluff

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 09:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Heheheee......

What's a wood shed????

Fanny

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 06:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
His so-called "apologies" are just as disgusting as his original remarks. Now he's lying. Pile that on top of being a blatant racist...what a guy.

Weenerlobo

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 07:15 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow - what a discussion!

I've never really thought Lott was all that effective as a majority leader. His comment was stupid and hurtful on so many levels. His "damage control" is ridiculous. There is an immeasurable quality in knowing when to bow out.

I'd rather see him gone; that way I wouldn't have to hear about it on the news all day and we could get someone in there who will have the chance to do a better job.

We need to be working on bi-partisanship and cooperation. We don't need ignorant people from either side.

Bastable

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 07:51 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Crossfire, an explanation: Many states (Florida is one of them) have a law that mandates if you've ever been convicted of a crime, you're NEVER allowed to vote in elections again, so long as you live. That's EVEN IF you honorably complete the sentence that the judge hands you.

Personally, I find this policy un-American, since it doesn't give people a chance to be rehabilitated after crimes. I mean, I can understand denying prisoners the right to vote--they forfeit all rights while imprisoned--but keeping them silent until they die, although they served their punishment and re-entered society and are paying taxes again, is unconstitutional. Many African-Americans also find it unfair because guess which group of people is most likely to go to prison? Not white guys. Many black leaders feel this law is a modern-day Jim Crow law designed to keep blacks, who tend to vote Democrat, from participating in the system. It's worth thinking about.

Grooch

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:16 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I thought it was only if you were convicted of a felony, not just any crime.

Bastable

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:19 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think the crime varies by state. But whatever the fine legal points are, the law's still out there in many places.

Crossfire

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks for the explanation Bastable. Put me in charge, and I would fix that. I personally can live with restricting votes while incarcerated, but once you do your time, its done.

Grooch

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:24 am EditMoveDeleteIP
True, but if it is for just any crime, that makes it a 1000 times worse.

Squaredsc

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:51 am EditMoveDeleteIP
i think if i remember correctly from high school, its if you are convicted of a felony then you lose your right to vote.

d.h. and i watched Lott on BET last nite and i couldn't believe it when he said that he didn't vote for the King Holiday 'cause he didn't really know who Martin L. King was. this was in 1983. i thought everyone knew who Martin L. King was.

yep the woodshed is the perfect place for him.