Posted on 12/13/2002 3:59:31 PM PST by ewing
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Lott, 61 announced [during the speech] that he was in talks with Black Entertainment Television to deliever and hour long speech next week to talk about 'his hopes and dreams for people' regardless of their race.
Lott, who was greeted with hearty cheers from supporters at the start of the news conference, vowed not to step down from his leadership post, rejecting the suggestion by some that he is bigoted against minorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Yeah, I screwed the pooch on that one. Do I have to resign? :-]
Indeed he will...and he will pay a political price for the decisions he makes concerning this. It's too bad he had to get weighed down by such foolishness.
This was all predictable though. Everyone who was paying attention, at least outside the Beltway, has known for a long time it was time for new leadership in the GOP...especially in the Senate.
The important thing is that Lott is NOT a racist. He doesn't look for ways to set back Black's rights or introduce legislation detrimental to them. This is all a great big red hering witch hunt.
I particularly like it when Pat noted that this was all about taking down Trent and had nothing to do with race. It's the same old democrats and media doing the same old things again and again. In a microcosm, it's Richard Nixon all over again. We can take him down, so let's do it. But when their side does 100 times worse, it's not even worth discussing.
Move along... who cares?... Let him get back to the nation's business...
Not for me...I'm easy! ;-)
It would have been a better speech if he had added a repudiation to 50 years of massive spending, special legislation and increased racial tension that have not improved blacks station in life one iota.
They make plaster board in Beijing?
If you get a chance, catch the Buchanan Hannity/Combs interview from today. While I don't think you like Pat much, he nails this one pretty well along the line you seem to have adopted.
He is youthful, telegenic, smart. He has a solid conservative foundation but sells it in a manner which has kept him on firm footing in a state that has been trending away from us.
He does not have the same baggage as Lott. He would solidify the other Pennsylvania seat which will eventually be a problem when Specter retires. He is an effective speaker. He could be in the position for decades. And where the other contenders are from the south, which is the focus area for this fiasco, Santorum is not.
The reason, I think, most people are not putting names out first is because what is driving this is not a desire for anyone to get their guy in there, but rather for us to deal with a problematic condition that some on our side do not see as necessarily being a problematic condition requiring action. That is where the disagreement is, and that is what people are arguing over.
The present minimum wage basically says that if your labor can't generate consistently a minimum of $13.00 an hour in revenue, then its value is ZERO. A $10/hour minimum wage basically says that if Joe Smith can't generate a minimum of $25 an hour for his employer, then Joe Smith should not be hired, and Joe Smith earns an hourly wage of $0.00.
There are MANY people who cannot generate that kind of revenue on a constant basis. What do you propose to do about them? Shoot them? Force the people who DO get work to pay for the care and feeding of those who don't?
You only seem to approve of contracts when they help you out.
I seek to get the best return on my time and efforts, as does the guy I'm contracting with. If I do not consider the return on investment to be high enough for what time, talent, and treasure I put into the contract, then I will contract with someone willing to meet my requirements. If the other party decides that I'm either asking too much or not offering enough, then he can decline to contract with me. That's the nature of free enterprise.
Government is a contract. Government has the right, even obligation to assure that none starve to death.
Are you sure you're on the right website?
Government protects the people in exchange for taxes and the right to make laws. This includes laws that protect the poor from people like you.
Again, I'm not doing anything to harm poor people.
If you don't like America get the he!! out.
If you don't like freedom, then kindly go elsewhere.
Contract with some other country.
Well, why don't you move to Sweden, or some Euro-peon country?
Agreed!
But you know what? People did not simply starve to death before the government got in the business of preventing it; at least not in a greater percentage than can be explained by the worse technology of the day. People will prevent people from starving even if the government does not take their money to try to do it for them.
In other words, I am on board with you. Those arguments are emotional appeals that aren't based on reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.