On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:16:32 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:45:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 05:30:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.

I'm just paraphrasing the conspiracy nuts who think our government is
in bed with big business and a host of other conglomerates.


Zeti-Reticuli?

Yea, you know, gray aliens..........




You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

Why, it's clear that YOU don't understand it.


This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

Yes but every time we have an election, the majority picks the winner.


Wrong. The majority of -voters- choose.

When you lose a debate, you nitpick semantics. The majority of voters
pick the winner. Those who are too indifferent or apathetic to vote
deserve what they get handed. Voting is a civic duty. People like to
scream about "rights" but they're curiously silent when it comes to
responsibilities. What ever happened to JFK's famous: "Ask not what
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?


And the person they choose is
not the "winner", as if being a public official was some sort of
prize.

It is a prize of sorts. It affirms the will of the majority of the
voters that their candidate will best represent what the majority
feels is important.


It's not. It's a job. And their job is to work in the best
interests of -ALL- their constituents, not just those that voted them
into office.

Ah, that naive idealism shows through again. You like to think of how
things SHOULD be. I, however, live in the real world. Those winning
candidates know all too well, who the people responsible for their
being there are, and will support their ideals and needs first and
foremost. That's the way it's always been.


And just for your information, your right to vote is granted by the
state, not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Then you'd have no problem if states started revoking certain people's
right to vote? After all, you're a staunch supporter of the letter of
the Constitution and consider it the be all and end all of everything
this country is.


There have been many
efforts to add a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every
citizen the right to vote, but each attempt has been blocked by the
Republicans.

I don't suppose you'd care to post the facts supporting that
conjecture?


That's just another tidbit you never hear about from the
"left-wing liberally biased news media".

Maybe because it isn't true......

You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,

Try to refuse to pay your taxes,


Now -there's- a great idea -- demand that the goverment protect your
country and your freedoms then squirm away when the bill comes.

Hey, I'm just "free thinking".


cry fire in a crowded theater,


Are you so uneducated that you don't even know where that phrase
originated?

Does it matter where it came from? It's a metaphor for outlining the
limits on your personal rights.


attempt to approach an elected official without permission,


Attempt to enter my house without permission and see what happens.


posses
contraband,


Contraband, by definition, is illegal.

According to whom? And that's the whole point.


or act in a manner which could be construed as suspicious.


You can blame Bush's Patriot Act for that one.

It's about time, and far to late if you ask me.



Your "rights" are limited, to some extent, by the government.


Of course rights have some limitations because there are circumstances
where exercising those rights can infringe on the rights of others.

Exactly! And what constitutes those "circumstances" is largely
determined by the majority of society.

How does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave?

It's not a matter of rights per se, it's a matter of preserving a
sacred tradition. I suppose that could be viewed as a right.

Some of
your "rights" are really privileges (try to drive a car without a
license).


The lack of a driver's license doesn't prevent you from travelling
freely, just not with a motor vehicle.

Well duh!

Regardless, you can drive a
motor vehicle without a license if you are on private property.

Did Twisty give you that one? And what good would driving a car around
a 1/2 acre lot do for you?

You really are grasping at straws.


Kids
do it all the time at the go-kart tracks. Farmers do it all the time
in their fields. Need more examples of your ignorance?

My ignorance? Your (now expected) penchant for trying to find small
exceptions to try (vainly) to disprove the rule is becoming even more
pitiful.



etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

But if your guy loses on election day, tough cookies.


If your guy loses on election day, you don't lose the rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

You might if enough people decide that an amendment is warranted. And
we're back to majority rule.


The USA is NOT a democracy

No, it's a representative republic, loosely based on parliamentary
rule.

-- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned.

You cannot give everyone what they want. Any fool (Except perhaps you)
knows that. When people group together with diametrically opposing
wishes and viewpoints, the largest group usually wins.


When you find a majority that is willing to give up the Constitution
then you let me know.

Regardless, the majority makes the decisions. The rights of the
minority are to be considered, but they don't have the right to
"override" the will of the majority.

If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

It's a shame that you took an oath to defend something that you don't
understand properly. You are a hopeless idealist.


So were the founding fathers.

No, they lived in a simpler time, and couldn't fathom such things as
terrorism, nuclear weapons, and rabid liberal atheists looking to
expunge God from all public works.


Reality is a concept
that escapes you. You don't even understand that the establishment
clause does not establish separation of church and state. Nowhere are
the words separation of church and state in there.


You tried that spin once before and it didn't work. Why would you
think it's going to work if you use it a second time?

Find me any place in the constitution which calls for separation of
church and state in matters of government.

Dave
"Sandbagger"