On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:00:08 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

First we would have to vote on who they are allowed to run, I don't see
anyone there right now I would vote for, not hillary, not kerry, not even
the congressman or senator who is "mine", it feels like someone else put him
in office (in deed the largest developer here donates to his campaign and my
elected official are bending over for him constantly--and the issues are
somehow ever blocked from getting onto the ballot to be reversed)--he has
done nothing for me... hope he has helped someone somewhere... what has your
congressman done for you?


That's just it. At the federal level, very little of what happens
directly benefits me (Unless we're talking about tax cuts). I
understand that I'm just one voice, and that my congressperson has no
obligation to consider my needs before those of thousands of other
people. To that end, I vote for people who share my "core values" and
political ideology. In that way, I can be reasonably sure they won't
do anything to seriously **** me off.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

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"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:32:42 GMT, james wrote:

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

Zeti-Reticuli?
******

I think he meant Zeta Reticuli. A binary star system in the
Constelation Reticulum. Composed of two stars Zeta1 and Zeta2. Both
are 5th magnitude stars and are visable from the most extreme southern
parts of the Northern Hemisphere.



That's the place. Rumored to be the origin of the so-called "gray"
Aliens.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:51:52 GMT, james wrote:

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


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

I am not a conspiracy nut. All you have to do is follow the money
trail and it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face that Congress
has been influienced by "money" Senators and Congressmen don't need
warchests of millions of dollars but for one thing, to get relected.
Who contributes to these warchests? Mostly Corporate America and
Foreign Global Companies.

Look at the legislation passed. Who does it favor? Why does Bush and
key republicans want to weaken EPA laws? To help companies that emmit
pollutants. Why? Because the costs to add additional equiptment to
meet the standards impact profits. Lower profits means that either
companies relocate outside the US or pass on the increased costs to
consumers. Yes companies use blackmail to get legislation in their
favor. They don't always get what they want and at times they get none
of what they want. But if y ou think that Corporate America does not
have any influence on Congress then I suggest that you come out of
Wonderland and quit chasing rabbits.

Of course there is influence. But that's hardly absolute control.
Buying political influence is a byproduct of a capitalist society. But
when did this become news?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:04:54 GMT, james wrote:

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

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.
******

Hello it is not tough cookies. The president does not have carte
blanche to just crush those that did not vote for him into the dirt.

No, but if the congress, and the judiciary are in sync with him.......


G W Bush is not the president of republicans. He is the president of
all political parties.

Even if they hate his guts. Bitter sweet if I may say so......


Any president has to realize that he must weigh
the needs of all the people of this country and not beholden to his
party.

Any political party owes their constituents first, and others
secondarily. If the majority of voters suddenly decide that they want
liberals redefining the constitution, declaring that gay marriage is
ok, but religious expression in public is not, dispensing of aspirin
in public schools requires parental consent (Mostly to absolve
liability), but dispensing a condom or providing abortion services is
fine without parental consent, and all sort of other nonsensical
ideological trends is what they want, then they can vote for those who
support it. Right now the majority of people, who care enough about
such issues, has decreed that that is not the way they want the
country to head.


That is where the partizen politics have degraded in this
country over the past 40 yrs.

Well both sides are to blame for that. Neither side wants to risk
political defeat in order to achieve compromise. There is also a great
amount of ideological passion on both sides. Both sides believe
strongly in "their" ideals, and believe equally that the other side is
horribly wrong for the future of the country.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:42:00 GMT, james wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

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.
*****

First I never stated that our system was the only way to go. While it
has its problems, the good of our system overrides the bad. What I
have stated is that if the citizens do not stand in vigilance of their
elected officials this government will degrade into Facism or a
dictatorship.

That cannot happen as long as the Constitution remains in effect. We
the people elect our leaders and we can elect new ones if we don't
like the old ones.




Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.

Yes you do. But you have to come to terms with the fact that a larger
number of people disagree with you.


Third if I don't like what the elected officials are doing I DO VOTE
against them.

And what happened?


Fourth we have a Constitution to protect the Rights of the Minority
and not the Rights of the Majority. The Majority never needs
protection.

No, because the majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of
the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the
needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority.

No matter what decision you make politically, someone will not like
it. A good politician is one who learns to **** off the least amount
of people.


Fifth I don't ask that everything that I want to be enacted. I do
waccept the rule of the majority. I do expect the majority to hear the
voice of the minority and compromise.

That's fair as long as the majority is not expected to abandon its
core ideological values.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
(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?)

It's not a matter of rights per se, it's a matter of
preserving a sacred tradition.


Nowhere are you guaranteed a right of preserving what you define as
"sacred".

I suppose that could be viewed as a right.

Which is why you continue to be wrong.

(Second since I vote, I have the right to complain whether you like it
or not.)

Yes you do. But you have to come to terms

with the fact that a larger number of people

disagree with you.



Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people
like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own
are somehow of the minority. It's people like you that are unable to
come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who
disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate.




The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the

rights of the minority are considered but it

makes no logical sense that the needs of that

minority outweighs the needs of the majority.


It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or
infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived
majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been
illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with
this administration. Recently, a meeting with Greenspan regarding the
Bush administration's way-off predictions concerning the economy went
something like this: Greenspan: "We certainly were wrong on those
figures. We were all wrong."
Hillary Clinton: "Just for the record, we weren't -all- wrong with our
predicted calculations. "
Of course, slavery was accepted by the majority, also. One shouldn't
have to provide countless examples of how "majority" does not equate
morality in any manner, yet you continue to confuse the two.



That's fair as long as the majority is not

expected to abandon its core ideological

values.



It goes both ways. You illustrate perfectly the current political
majority is not only rabid, but has zero tolerance toward any view other
than their own. Like the Bush admin prostitutes religion, you do the
same thing with morals, invoking -your- values as the litmus test and
justification to sit in judgement of others.




Dave

"Sandbagger"

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"