Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    vikingivan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "BadlandsViking" wrote:
    So if all his friends voted for him to jump off a bridge would he do that too?
    If that's what they wanted.

  2. #12
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    THATS ABSOLUTE BULL!!! He's only there to tell the voice of his people. Its not a democracy if the peoples vote means nothing. If the vast majority votes for something you dont have any power to go against it. You are not a person with an opinion higher then that of your people. Democracy says this guy is there to report what his people say. Thats like saying. My people vote for no war. 81% but i think its a good idea to go into war so lets do it. No what do the the votes mean then? They don't mean diddily squat if a person can go against them that easily. I will repeat the main statement.
    This guys opinion is not higher then that of his people
    That is democracy! Maybe in Canada your vote means squat but you vote because your bored but dare I say it the way America should be is this way. It isn't a lot of the time which is why i like Canada better but thats the way its suppose to be and I support this guy for trying his hardest to preserve that
    I understand what this guy is trying to say. He is saying that he does exactly what the polls say. I dissagree with that because I want to elect someone that will use there brain. If all you do is ask a hundred people a question and make the majority your opinion what good are you? Still it is better than telling the people one thing and then getting into office and doing something completely different.
    The guy did apologize and said that if that did happen he would resign. It was a hypothetical question so I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion.

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    THATS ABSOLUTE BULL!!! He's only there to tell the voice of his people. Its not a democracy if the peoples vote means nothing. If the vast majority votes for something you dont have any power to go against it. You are not a person with an opinion higher then that of your people. Democracy says this guy is there to report what his people say. Thats like saying. My people vote for no war. 81% but i think its a good idea to go into war so lets do it. No what do the the votes mean then? They don't mean diddily squat if a person can go against them that easily. I will repeat the main statement.
    This guys opinion is not higher then that of his people
    That is democracy! Maybe in Canada your vote means squat but you vote because your bored but dare I say it the way America should be is this way. It isn't a lot of the time which is why i like Canada better but thats the way its suppose to be and I support this guy for trying his hardest to preserve that
    You might want to take a class in government there PHoD.
    We don't have a true democracy in the USA, nor would one even be practical.
    You used people voting on a war in your example.
    I didn't ever see a vote regarding the war, did you? No.
    Because we (the people) vote to elect representatives to Congress, and they vote for things like war.


    Yes, the representatives should reflect the vioce of his or her constituents, but if he or she ran to some public opinion poll before voting on everything there would never be any work done on the poll.
    Before voting on something it is our responsibility to have done the necessary research to make an educated decision regarding the issue.
    Otherwise, the bills that are worded the best would win every time.
    We could replace politicians with marketing managers.
    And you can guess how well that would turn out.
    Voting without doing the research is irresponsible, and as citizens who have full time jobs, we rarely have the time to put adequate research into the issues.
    That is why we vote people into office to do exactly that.

    Public opinion is also very fluid, and can change incredibly fast - much faster than law can.
    So voting solely basic on public opinion is stupidity.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #14
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    I disagree. The representative, if he's one that you elected, should be voting on your behalf in the same manner as if you were voting.

    That's why you vote for him/her in the election.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  5. #15
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "singersp" wrote:
    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    I disagree. The representative, if he's one that you elected, should be voting on your behalf in the same manner as if you were voting.

    That's why you vote for him/her in the election.
    not neccassarily. I vote based on character too. There are a few issues that are deal breakers but most issues I don't follow closely enough to feel my opinion is right. It would be nice if elected officials actually believed in what they are voting for instead of just voting to make a certain group happy, raise money, get reelected.

  6. #16
    vike_mike's Avatar
    vike_mike is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    474

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    i think there's nothing wrong with what he said. Like tb0451 said he should have chose his analogy better but he's right. If a vast majority of the population votes for anything it is his job to go that way too. Whether it be slavery or crippling babies. Hes called a representative for a reason. He represents his state. Its democracy last time he checked. (It doesn't really seem that way anymore though :-\ ) I agree with him. He represents the people not his own belief.
    Yeah that's right.
    Bone heads always do what other bone heads do.
    If the state or people there of represent a criminal act, which clearly is what slavery was and would be today, and he went along with it, then he would be a bone head along with all the other nit wits that even came up with the idea.
    Even stating slavery at all, knowing what it would lead to, is just mind boggling.
    He could have used any kind of other analogy to get his point across, he chose the one that he knew would get people going, especially the people he is obviously offending.
    If you think there is nothing wrong with what he said, then this is why people will never get along.
    I hope everyone takes note.

  7. #17
    vike_mike's Avatar
    vike_mike is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    474

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    THATS ABSOLUTE BULL!!! He's only there to tell the voice of his people. Its not a democracy if the peoples vote means nothing. If the vast majority votes for something you dont have any power to go against it. You are not a person with an opinion higher then that of your people. Democracy says this guy is there to report what his people say. Thats like saying. My people vote for no war. 81% but i think its a good idea to go into war so lets do it. No what do the the votes mean then? They don't mean diddily squat if a person can go against them that easily. I will repeat the main statement.
    This guys opinion is not higher then that of his people
    That is democracy! Maybe in Canada your vote means squat but you vote because your bored but dare I say it the way America should be is this way. It isn't a lot of the time which is why i like Canada better but thats the way its suppose to be and I support this guy for trying his hardest to preserve that
    I understand what this guy is trying to say. He is saying that he does exactly what the polls say. I dissagree with that because I want to elect someone that will use there brain. If all you do is ask a hundred people a question and make the majority your opinion what good are you? Still it is better than telling the people one thing and then getting into office and doing something completely different.
    The guy did apologize and said that if that did happen he would resign. It was a hypothetical question so I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion.
    Just because he apologized carries little weight.
    I don't know if he really is sorry, or just trying to get heat off of himself.
    Either way, you don't say those things especially today when everyone knows not to say idiotic things like that unless he doesn't care to get a beat down.
    By the way, if he is representing the people in his district or area, I am sure there are more than a few of those same people he offended in his district also.
    You don't just represent the majority, you are a representative of everyone, EVERYONE.

  8. #18
    lakehubertviking is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    618

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "tb04512" wrote:
    he shouldve choose a different analogy
    Also in his defense I thought the article said the analogy was posed to him by Rep. Kron, he was just sticking to his guns when posed with a ridiculous comparison.

    It was a philosophy that he had espoused many times before, said Commissioner Bill Kron, who, emboldened by a then-recent viewing of the anti-slavery film "Amazing Grace," decided to pose the slavery question. Though not captured on the YouTube clip, Kron recalls saying to Nelson: "There are some issues of conscience where the majority may not be right; for example, would you have voted for slavery if the majority of your constituents would have?"

  9. #19
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "lakehubertviking" wrote:
    "tb04512" wrote:
    he shouldve choose a different analogy
    Also in his defense I thought the article said the analogy was posed to him by Rep. Kron, he was just sticking to his guns when posed with a ridiculous comparison.

    It was a philosophy that he had espoused many times before, said Commissioner Bill Kron, who, emboldened by a then-recent viewing of the anti-slavery film "Amazing Grace," decided to pose the slavery question. Though not captured on the YouTube clip, Kron recalls saying to Nelson: "There are some issues of conscience where the majority may not be right; for example, would you have voted for slavery if the majority of your constituents would have?"
    So Kron was the idiot who brought up the slavery question.

    But they don't how that in the video.

    Of course not. It was probably put up by a Kron supporter.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  10. #20
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "singersp" wrote:
    "canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
    The reason they're called representatives is that they represent their state in Congress, and in Congress, they make the best decisions to benefit their state and the union. If that means going against the wishes of the people, then that must be the case.

    It would be completely ridiculous to vote/govern exclusively by the polls, because a lot of the public either don't completely understand complex issues that they have opinions on, or their opinions are unfair to others.

    This is the definition of a liberal democracy, which is what almost all democracies are (and that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative viewpoints). A liberal democracy means that you govern according to the public's opinion in general, with exceptions. For example, if you governed with the polls, you would never have minority rights.

    The only way the States got civil rights (which I think most people would agree is a good thing) is by going against public opinion in the South. It was an important decision though, so going against the polls was a good idea.
    I disagree. The representative, if he's one that you elected, should be voting on your behalf in the same manner as if you were voting.

    That's why you vote for him/her in the election.
    I tread the middle ground here.
    Yes, the representative should vote in the same manner if you would if you had the same level of information about a specific vote as the representative does.
    There is a reason that being a representative is a full time job (and employs several full time aides for that matter).
    There is a lot more that goes into one vote than what is listed on the ballot.
    What are the consequences economically, ecologically, politically, etc, from that vote?
    How much research has gone in to drafting the bill, and is is spun in a particular direction or is it a straightforward presentation of the issue?
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Adrian Peterson regrets modern-day slavery remarks
    By Purple Floyd in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 06:05 PM
  2. Adrian Peterson compares NFL to modern-day slavery
    By Purple Floyd in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 06:15 AM
  3. Favre clarifies 'best team' remark
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2009, 08:22 AM
  4. Police: Conn. woman bitten after 'bite me' remark
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 08:44 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-19-2005, 06:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •