On 08 Nov 2004 18:54:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I'm sure If I really wanted to, I could come up with a bunch more.

Dave



But they would all say the same thing: Certain groups were granted extra-legal
privilege and status merely because they were more numerous and that was the
way it had *always* been done.

What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED.

We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught
dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance.

Dave

What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED.

How did they earn the right to devote a portion of the public school day to
Christian religious practice, (all the while demanding that non-Christians
either participate or just shut the f up- out of a respect the more numerous
demanded but were unwilling to demonstate in return)?

How did they earn the right to send people they felt were inferior to
designated
rest rooms, drinking fountains, the back row or second floor in a theater, and
substandard employment opportunities?

How does anyone earn the right to be a self righteous, intolerant, bigot, (and
put those prejudices into the core of the social fabric)?

How did you guys earn the right to ruin the
lives and reputations of thousands of innocent people in the McCarthy political
witch hunt?

We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught
dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance.

Funny comment from a guy who probably enjoys, as most Americans do, subsidized
housing (tax break for home mortgage interest), subsidized education (publicly
funded schools and taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities), a government
funded Ponzi-scheme fantasy retirement system (most people outlive their SS
contributions by many, many years), subsidized medical coverage (medicare,
medicaid, etc).....and like you I could go on and on.

When the public treasury steps up to meet you needs, that's OK- but if it meets
the needs of a seven-year-old child with irresponsible parents or an adult you
deem less worthy than yourself that is a "shame"?

On 09 Nov 2004 16:25:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED.

How did they earn the right to devote a portion of the public school day to
Christian religious practice, (all the while demanding that non-Christians
either participate or just shut the f up- out of a respect the more numerous
demanded but were unwilling to demonstate in return)?

Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules.
It's what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it
should be. Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining
whims of the small, but highly vocal minority.

How did they earn the right to send people they felt were inferior to
designated
rest rooms, drinking fountains, the back row or second floor in a theater, and
substandard employment opportunities?

Prejudice is a disease for which the cure is often long in coming. But
by mandating quotas, (systemic institutionalized discrimination) and
proliferating the racial divide, it only keeps that prejudice alive,
and in many cases infuriates it.


How does anyone earn the right to be a self righteous, intolerant, bigot, (and
put those prejudices into the core of the social fabric)?

Because some people, actions, and customs are not worthy of tolerance,
as they are abhorrent, decadent, or otherwise immoral. The line has to
be drawn somewhere. Logic says that if you wish to be tolerant, then
the end result is a nation which accepts any behavior no matter how
morally or socially wrong. If not, then the only difference between
you and I, is where we draw the line.

How did you guys earn the right to ruin the
lives and reputations of thousands of innocent people in the McCarthy political
witch hunt?

In every war, there is collateral damage. This is no different.
Although in all honesty, the McCarthy hearings were driven mostly from
paranoia. But it is in the best interests of national security to keep
tabs on subversives who seek to undermine or overthrow our government
and our hard earned way of life.


We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught
dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance.

Funny comment from a guy who probably enjoys, as most Americans do, subsidized
housing (tax break for home mortgage interest),

What, you're spin machine is working overtime now? You expect the
good folks out there to buy into the notion that the government was
doing us all a favor when they "graciously" allowed use to use an
exemption against our OWN MONEY paid in taxes that we shouldn't have
to pay in the first place? Please!

subsidized education (publicly
funded schools and taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities),

Public schools are one of the most inefficient and poorly organized of
all public works. I could take the money that I pay in public school
taxes and get a better quality education at any number of private
schools. That's one reason I favor school vouchers.

a government
funded Ponzi-scheme fantasy retirement system (most people outlive their SS
contributions by many, many years)

That's why I favor privatizing retirement in individual controlled
IRA-type accounts. I don't expect to see dime one from SS. I'm sure
that by the time I retire (God willing), the program will be bankrupt.
That's why I am actively participating in my own 401K. It would be
nice to take my yearly SS contribution and add it to my 401K where I
KNOW it will be there for me, when I need it.

, subsidized medical coverage (medicare,
medicaid, etc).....and like you I could go on and on.

My HMO is company paid. Currently the company extends full medical
benefits to retirees. That could change, but medicare is the least of
my worries.


When the public treasury steps up to meet you needs, that's OK- but if it meets
the needs of a seven-year-old child with irresponsible parents or an adult you
deem less worthy than yourself that is a "shame"?

I don't take anything from public assistance, and there is no reason
why other able bodied people need to.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 09 Nov 2004 16:25:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED.

How did they earn the right to devote a portion of the public school day
to
Christian religious practice, (all the while demanding that non-Christians
either participate or just shut the f up- out of a respect the more
numerous
demanded but were unwilling to demonstate in return)?

Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules.
It's what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it
should be. Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining
whims of the small, but highly vocal minority.

How did they earn the right to send people they felt were inferior to
designated
rest rooms, drinking fountains, the back row or second floor in a theater,
and
substandard employment opportunities?

Prejudice is a disease for which the cure is often long in coming. But
by mandating quotas, (systemic institutionalized discrimination) and
proliferating the racial divide, it only keeps that prejudice alive,
and in many cases infuriates it.


How does anyone earn the right to be a self righteous, intolerant, bigot,
(and
put those prejudices into the core of the social fabric)?

Because some people, actions, and customs are not worthy of tolerance,
as they are abhorrent, decadent, or otherwise immoral. The line has to
be drawn somewhere. Logic says that if you wish to be tolerant, then
the end result is a nation which accepts any behavior no matter how
morally or socially wrong. If not, then the only difference between
you and I, is where we draw the line.

How did you guys earn the right to ruin the
lives and reputations of thousands of innocent people in the McCarthy
political
witch hunt?

In every war, there is collateral damage. This is no different.
Although in all honesty, the McCarthy hearings were driven mostly from
paranoia. But it is in the best interests of national security to keep
tabs on subversives who seek to undermine or overthrow our government
and our hard earned way of life.


We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught
dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance.

Funny comment from a guy who probably enjoys, as most Americans do,
subsidized
housing (tax break for home mortgage interest),

What, you're spin machine is working overtime now? You expect the
good folks out there to buy into the notion that the government was
doing us all a favor when they "graciously" allowed use to use an
exemption against our OWN MONEY paid in taxes that we shouldn't have
to pay in the first place? Please!

subsidized education (publicly
funded schools and taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities),

Public schools are one of the most inefficient and poorly organized of
all public works. I could take the money that I pay in public school
taxes and get a better quality education at any number of private
schools. That's one reason I favor school vouchers.

a government
funded Ponzi-scheme fantasy retirement system (most people outlive their
SS
contributions by many, many years)

That's why I favor privatizing retirement in individual controlled
IRA-type accounts. I don't expect to see dime one from SS. I'm sure
that by the time I retire (God willing), the program will be bankrupt.
That's why I am actively participating in my own 401K. It would be
nice to take my yearly SS contribution and add it to my 401K where I
KNOW it will be there for me, when I need it.

, subsidized medical coverage (medicare,
medicaid, etc).....and like you I could go on and on.

My HMO is company paid. Currently the company extends full medical
benefits to retirees. That could change, but medicare is the least of
my worries.


When the public treasury steps up to meet you needs, that's OK- but if it
meets
the needs of a seven-year-old child with irresponsible parents or an adult
you
deem less worthy than yourself that is a "shame"?

I don't take anything from public assistance, and there is no reason
why other able bodied people need to.

Dave

Got to love the liebral thinking...that somehow the guvmint is subsidizing
you when they are robbing your through taxes in the first place to pay for
it.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:53:50 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules. It's
what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it should be.
Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining whims of the
small, but highly vocal minority.

Not quite, you are touching on the fundamental reason our forefathers
decided on a constitutional republic, to avoid the tyranny of democracy
(mob rule).

Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules. It's
what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it should be.
Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining whims of the
small, but highly vocal minority.



Perhaps you can identify such a society?

Personally, I live in the United States. The
people rule here, and we self govern by means of a Constitution. There are
steps outlined whereby a "majority" can change the constitution- but until the
constitution is changed it guarantees equal protection and rights for all. It
specifically protects minority and dissenting elements from extra-legal
persecution by the majority.

Public sentiment is fickle. We see it all the time in the state where I live.
One year the
"majority" approves a new government program at the state level, (with the
required spending, of course), and the next
year the "majority" calls for tax revisions that wipe out the funding for the
programs recently voted into place. That's not government, that's anarchy, and
it's why we have federal and state constitutions.

On 09 Nov 2004 20:49:49 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Them's the breaks when you live in a society where majority rules. It's
what the majority wanted, and it's what they got. The way it should be.
Not the majority's wishes being held hostage to the whining whims of the
small, but highly vocal minority.



Perhaps you can identify such a society?

Personally, I live in the United States. The
people rule here, and we self govern by means of a Constitution. There are
steps outlined whereby a "majority" can change the constitution- but until the
constitution is changed it guarantees equal protection and rights for all. It
specifically protects minority and dissenting elements from extra-legal
persecution by the majority.

There is a difference between recognizing and allowing for the wishes
of the minority, and denying the rights of the majority in the
process. The minority has the right to "do their own thing" but they
don't have the right to demand that the majority stops doing their's
out of some warped interpretation of "tolerance".

Dave

There is a difference between recognizing and allowing for the wishes
of the minority, and denying the rights of the majority in the
process.

The law equally protects the rights of the majority. It does not, and should
not, protect illegal or extra-legal privileges presumed by the majority- this
is where we disagree on this issue.

On 09 Nov 2004 16:25:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

What "extra" privilege? They all had to pull their own weight. What
"privilege" they had, they EARNED.

How did they earn the right to devote a portion of the public school day to
Christian religious practice, (all the while demanding that non-Christians
either participate or just shut the f up- out of a respect the more numerous
demanded but were unwilling to demonstate in return)?

How did they earn the right to send people they felt were inferior to
designated
rest rooms, drinking fountains, the back row or second floor in a theater, and
substandard employment opportunities?

How does anyone earn the right to be a self righteous, intolerant, bigot, (and
put those prejudices into the core of the social fabric)?

How did you guys earn the right to ruin the
lives and reputations of thousands of innocent people in the McCarthy political
witch hunt?

We didn't need a social safety net, because no one would be caught
dead with the shame that would accompany someone on public assistance.

Funny comment from a guy who probably enjoys, as most Americans do, subsidized
housing (tax break for home mortgage interest), subsidized education (publicly
funded schools and taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities), a government
funded Ponzi-scheme fantasy retirement system (most people outlive their SS
contributions by many, many years), subsidized medical coverage (medicare,
medicaid, etc).....and like you I could go on and on.

When the public treasury steps up to meet you needs, that's OK- but if it meets
the needs of a seven-year-old child with irresponsible parents or an adult you
deem less worthy than yourself that is a "shame"?


Maybe a solution would be to take the child away from the
irresponsible parents. Maybe if the parents realized they wouldn't get
a bigger check with each child, there wouldn't be as many illegitimate
children and/or more responsible parents.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!