"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Ask 100 people what one word they remember foremost from that period of
time. You know the word. It's a dirty one. Your elected officials turned it
into front page news.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit the
power of the federal guvmint.

Gee, then if that was true, then why were slaves not given any due
consideration for their rights until after the civil war? It would
seem that there were exceptions to this concept of guaranteed minority
rights.

When I was in school the definition given for this country's
government was stated as a "representative democracy". A form of
democracy where we elect people to represent our wishes before the
congress. Our senators and representatives are then SUPPOSED to vote
the will of their constituency.

There has been much word smithing being done as of late on the
semantics of the terms "democracy", "republic", "representative
democracy" etc.. It would seem to me that much of this is simply
being done in order to twist the words of our founding fathers into a
more liberal interpretation of what they actually meant.

Do you mean to tell me that our election process, and in the voting
in of propositions and local ordinances are not based on the results
of a majority ruling?

I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. "Rights" do not
necessarily mean the same thing as "laws" or "the will of the people"


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.

Not if they are in direct conflict with them.

Otherwise what you are basically saying is that the will of the
greater number of people is to be held hostage to the will of the
lesser. It defies logic.

Is it more logical to **** off a large group of people, or a small
one?

Certain basic rights shall be guaranteed to the minority as well as
the majority, but the majority still makes the rules. Otherwise why
have elections at all?

Rights are also not guarantees. You have the right to vote, but you
don't have the guarantee that your guy will win. You have the right to
the pursuit of happiness, but not the guarantee that you'll achieve
it. You have the right to seek gainful employment, but no guarantee
that you'll get the job you want or be able to keep it. You have the
right to challenge or protest a law or action you feel is somehow
"wrong", but there is no guarantee that the majority of the rest of
the people will agree with you, or that the action will be overturned.

If you like opera, and want the town planners to build a theater for
it, but the majority of the town would rather build a new football
stadium, guess who will win?

THAT is what I mean by majority rule.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to
protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit
the
power of the federal guvmint.

Gee, then if that was true, then why were slaves not given any due
consideration for their rights until after the civil war? It would
seem that there were exceptions to this concept of guaranteed minority
rights.

Because slaves were not considered citizens at the time, and therefore had
no rights.


When I was in school the definition given for this country's
government was stated as a "representative democracy". A form of
democracy where we elect people to represent our wishes before the
congress. Our senators and representatives are then SUPPOSED to vote
the will of their constituency.

Your school was wrong. The form of guvmint is a Constitutionally Limited
Republic.

No, they are not supposed to vote the will of their
constituency........there is no law stating such.



There has been much word smithing being done as of late on the
semantics of the terms "democracy", "republic", "representative
democracy" etc.. It would seem to me that much of this is simply
being done in order to twist the words of our founding fathers into a
more liberal interpretation of what they actually meant.

I am beginning to beleive you are the one with the difficulty in
understanding the basic concepts.



Do you mean to tell me that our election process, and in the voting
in of propositions and local ordinances are not based on the results
of a majority ruling?

Only within the confines of the consitution and the protection of individual
rights.


I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. "Rights" do not
necessarily mean the same thing as "laws" or "the will of the people"

Rights are inalienable. Laws are only valid if they do not infringe on
those inalienable rights.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.

Not if they are in direct conflict with them.

WRONG


Otherwise what you are basically saying is that the will of the
greater number of people is to be held hostage to the will of the
lesser. It defies logic.

Nope. Rights are inalienable. They cannot be trumphed by the majority
will. That is the very reason why the Constitution is such a great
document, and the founding fathers had such great foresight NOT to establish
a democracy.



Is it more logical to **** off a large group of people, or a small
one?

Doesn't matter, the individual's rights are all that matter, not the
majority will.


Certain basic rights shall be guaranteed to the minority as well as
the majority, but the majority still makes the rules. Otherwise why
have elections at all?

Only as long as the individual rights are not violated.


Rights are also not guarantees. You have the right to vote, but you
don't have the guarantee that your guy will win. You have the right to
the pursuit of happiness, but not the guarantee that you'll achieve
it. You have the right to seek gainful employment, but no guarantee
that you'll get the job you want or be able to keep it.

And your point is?

You have the
right to challenge or protest a law or action you feel is somehow
"wrong", but there is no guarantee that the majority of the rest of
the people will agree with you, or that the action will be overturned.

If the law violates your rights, then it will be overturned despite the will
of the majority.


If you like opera, and want the town planners to build a theater for
it, but the majority of the town would rather build a new football
stadium, guess who will win?

It depends.


THAT is what I mean by majority rule.

And majority want does not equate to majority rule......which is the beauty
of the constitution.......other wise I could organize a majority to say that
all your pocessions are forfeited to the majority.


Dave

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Dave Hall wrote:
Bull ****.

Nope. It's the truth. Ask anybody who got an A in high school history
and/or civics.



... Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority).

That's also true. So why is it that you support the idea that a minority
of one can imprison or kill any citizen (or take away any lesser
Constitutional rights) on a whim?


I'm not the one who's ignorant.

Uh huh... and Nixon kept repeating "I am not a crook!"

DSK

I think the all of the clinton gate scandals were just a distraction while the
corporations tightened their grip on the government.
Clinton did nothing to stop them since his whole agenda was pro business and it
aided in the execution. Everyone, including the most anti corporation dems were
blinded by the light. Eight years later we woke up to find China and their US
outlet mall, Walmart/Sams (Bentonville Arkansas), had gobbled up a huge portion
of our economy.
Does anyone really believe the governor of a state dominated by a single
corporation would act differently?
The Chinese connection doesn't stop there. The phony assault weapons ban
conveniently ignored the products from Norinco/Polytech and they managed to
dump over a million "post-ban" AKs, SKS's and other military clone weapons on
the US market in the ban inspired buying frenzy. The reality was NOTHING was
really banned except magazines for 22LR Ruger 1022s. It was the only thing I
saw that was not availble in the discount mail order rags and gun stores.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger who fails to realize there would have been
no perjury if the Republican Congress hadn't spent $80-million taxpayer dollars
investigating Clinton's sex life in the first place.

A married mad lied about an affair. Not news. Dumb schlitz did it under oath...

I see that W and Cheney learned a lot from Clinton's problem, however. When
called before the 9-11 commission to testify, they simply refused to be sworn
in. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger ........

Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Your first sentence in your reply to Dave is exactly what you often complain
about...a personal attack.

Will the real Chuck please stand up?

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger ........

Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Your first sentence in your reply to Dave is exactly what you often
complain about...a personal attack.

Will the real Chuck please stand up?


Why don't you respond to the meat of what Chuck wrote? Dave can take care of
himself.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.

JimH wrote:
Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Why did Dave need to insult people who disagree with him?

DSK