Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    sleepagent is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,505

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    Pehaps I'm off base here, but I didn't read into that as being a Pro-Slavery comment, as much as it was his point that he respects the wishes of the district he represents.
    He should have brushed off the stupid question about slavery, but I took it as he was just making a point about representation . . . not the specifics of slavery.

    "No Greater Friend . . . No Worse Enemy. U.S. MARINES"
    "FIND YOUR PASSION AND MAKE IT HAPPEN!"
    "SUCCESS LOOKS EASY TO THOSE THAT WEREN'T THERE WHEN IT WAS BEING ACHIEVED!"

  2. #22
    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

    "sleepagent" wrote:
    Pehaps I'm off base here, but I didn't read into that as being a Pro-Slavery comment, as much as it was his point that he respects the wishes of the district he represents.
    He should have brushed off the stupid question about slavery, but I took it as he was just making a point about representation . . . not the specifics of slavery.
    You aren't off base, that is pretty much what happened.
    But first of all, he should have been smart enough not to follow them down the slavery path.
    That made him look like a total jackass.
    And second, his answer was way off base anyway.
    If his district wanted to legalize slavery, he would vote for it?
    There is a certain moral responsibility one accepts when they become representatives.
    Sometimes you have to go against a voter's wishes for the greater good of the community as a whole.
    There would be enormous consequences, both from neighboring communities as well as the federal government if he tried to do something stupid like that, and it would hurt his district as a whole.

    Obviously it was a stupid question.
    But his answer was just as stupid.
    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=

  3. #23
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    I wish we had more like him in the US Congress. Not the slavery issue but someone who listened to the people rather than the lobbiests. ;D
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  4. #24
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,234

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    He will get cut down from his almighty goverment position for that i bet. He never really said anything offensive. He just tryed to prove a point and went to far. I feel bad for the guy, he's gonna be labeled a racist for the rest of his life now.

    I hate "politically correct."
    But i guess it really matters in politics lol.















    Fuck.







  5. #25
    ColoradoVike is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    444

    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.
    If that were the case, wouldn't the representative be obsolete? Most decisions in the US are made by representatives and not the masses (i.e., direct democracy). Canada_Vikes Fan gave a great summary of how representative democracy works in general. Like it or not, it's very accurate. Most people seem to subscribe to the populist's reader's digest version of government. For better or for worse, that's not the government on the books and that's not how it works in practice. The idea that a rep is there to represent his district is a campaign slogan and not a reality. Think about it: how could the wishes and wants of thousands upon thousands of people be crisply distilled into a single vote?

  6. #26
    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

    "ColoradoVike" wrote:
    "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.
    If that were the case, wouldn't the representative be obsolete? Most decisions in the US are made by representatives and not the masses (i.e., direct democracy). Canada_Vikes Fan gave a great summary of how representative democracy works in general. Like it or not, it's very accurate. Most people seem to subscribe to the populist's reader's digest version of government. For better or for worse, that's not the government on the books and that's not how it works in practice. The idea that a rep is there to represent his district is a campaign slogan and not a reality. Think about it: how could the wishes and wants of thousands upon thousands of people be crisply distilled into a single vote?
    And I think this guy has said that he is not making personal decisions but is just going to do what the people vote. If that is what he said he would do while campaigning i think it is a good thing. I think too many politicians do what the people that funded his campaign want instead of what the people actually want.

  7. #27
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "jmcdon00" wrote:

    And I think this guy has said that he is not making personal decisions but is just going to do what the people vote. If that is what he said he would do while campaigning i think it is a good thing. I think too many politicians do what the people that funded his campaign want instead of what the people actually want.
    WOW!!!
    For once I COMPLETELY agree with my lefty liberal buddy!
    This has a first.
    ;D ;D

  8. #28
    VKG4LFE's Avatar
    VKG4LFE is offline Jersey Retired Tetris Champion, Monkey GO Happy 4 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Hartford, WI
    Posts
    16,013

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    Wow, I can't believe he sat in that room, on video and said that!

    I get the most pissed off looks from people with my VKG 4 LFE Wisconsin license plate, and I LOVE IT!!

  9. #29
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "ColoradoVike" wrote:
    "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.
    If that were the case, wouldn't the representative be obsolete? Most decisions in the US are made by representatives and not the masses (i.e., direct democracy). Canada_Vikes Fan gave a great summary of how representative democracy works in general. Like it or not, it's very accurate. Most people seem to subscribe to the populist's reader's digest version of government. For better or for worse, that's not the government on the books and that's not how it works in practice. The idea that a rep is there to represent his district is a campaign slogan and not a reality. Think about it: how could the wishes and wants of thousands upon thousands of people be crisply distilled into a single vote?
    It's not a perfect system, but that is how it's supposed to work. Granted there are some issues that politicians might understand better than the ordinary person, but they are still supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents.

    If it were simply a matter of voting for whats best for the state, why then do they break the representatives down into districts?

    It's so they can listen to the voice of the people they represent.

    One has to wonder just how knowledgeable some of these representatives are on some of the issues. Do they get special education on the issue? Do they get special info on the issue? Do they take the time to read it or educate themselves on it & vote accordingly?

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

  10. #30
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Slavery remark sparks furor

    "jessejames09" wrote:
    He will get cut down from his almighty goverment position for that i bet. He never really said anything offensive. He just tryed to prove a point and went to far. I feel bad for the guy, he's gonna be labeled a racist for the rest of his life now.

    I hate "politically correct."
    But i guess it really matters in politics lol.

    "VKG4LFE" wrote:
    Wow, I can't believe he sat in that room, on video and said that!

    That's how the game of politics is played. Print or show only the portion that makes your opponent look bad.

    If anyone should be in question & under scruitiney, it should be Kron. The debate was about a smoking ban & Kron brought up the totally irrelevant slavery analogy;

    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?"

    He was put in a pretty type spot & answered the "loaded" question basically stating he would vote the way the majority of his constituents would have voted.

    It was a poor question by Kron. Do people here actually believe the majority of the people in a district would vote in favor of slavery or that a majority of people in aggregate are wrong?


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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •