On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:28:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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"?


Contrary to your "core beliefs", -all- citizens have Constitutional
rights whether they vote or not. And as for civic duty, I enlisted in
the USMC, sewed a target (the US flag) on my shoulder and took a
stroll through the middle of a civil war in Lebanon -- so what did
-you- do for your country, Dave?


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.


The job of any elected official is to represent -all- his constituents
-regardless- of whether they voted for him, someone else, or nobody at
all.


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.


You are absolutely correct. They know all too well that they were
voted into office by Americans -- citizens of a country where the law
of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And -THAT- is
their number one priority because the Constitution is the number one
priority of each and every citizen. At least it's the first priority
of any citizen that exercises any rights that are protected by it. If
it were intended to be otherwise we wouldn't have elections by secret
ballot.


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.


Of course I would have a problem with it, just like I have a problem
with the current system of electing a president with an electoral
college. Do you have any problem with a Constitutional amendment that
guarantees every citizen the right to vote?


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?


Not really -- facts don't carry much weight where your opinions are
concerned. If you really want the facts you can find them yourself,
just like you have been able to do with every other topic. And just
like every other topic you will probably refuse to dig for the facts
for yourself. But if you really want to suprise me, you can start by
learning something about HJR 28.


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

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


How do you think Bush wormed his way into the White House? Because the
Supreme Court affirmed that the right to vote is not guaranteed by the
Constitution (Bush vs. Gore). Or do you think that the Supreme Court
Justices are just a bunch of "activist judges", or that their decision
was written by some "skilled left wing propagandist"?


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.


It's an analogy, not a metaphor. And it -does- matter where the phrase
originated because it's part of the law. You can't falsely cry fire in
a crowded theater because it presents a "clear and present danger"
(Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47).


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.


Gawd you are stupid.


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.


I didn't ask you.


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.


Wrong. It's determined by the rights that are being infringed upon.


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.


Sorry, that doesn't wash -- you are "preserving a sacred tradition" at
the expense of the rights of others. That's not a right, that's just
another one of your bogus excuses.


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?


It sure beats carrying 30 bags of concrete by hand.


You really are grasping at straws.


Bales of it -- it's a lot easier to move a few dozen bales of straw
around the farm on a truck instead of on your back.


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.


Your (often demonstrated) penchant for trying to find small exceptions
to try (vainly) to defend your ignorance is quite entertaining.


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.


But it's far from a simple majority. An amendment proposal must pass
Congress by a 2/3 majority, and -then- it must pass the States by a
3/4 majority. But even before you call that 'majority rule', know
this: Since 1787 there have been well over 2000 proposed amendments to
the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights has survived unscathed for
almost as long -- if you really think that the 1st Amendment is going
to be repealed just because a few homophobic "Christians" don't like
the idea of gays getting married then.... well, even -you- can't be
-that- stupid. Or am I wrong?


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.


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


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.


The only thing you got right was that they didn't have any idea about
nuclear weapons. The rest is a further demonstration that you slept
through your History classes.


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.


The First Amendment. Haven't you been paying attention?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----