Clyde Slick wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!
All from:
Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news
"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "
Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.
Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.
Not by popular vote, which is too volatile.
Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to.
We have always had discourse and public decison making on
civil rights.slavery, suffrage, employment discrimination,
governmental powers, voting rights, etc.
Correct, to a point. They have been debated in Congress, then ratified
by state legislatures. Kind of like it says in Article 5 of the
Constitution, back in the days when we had one that government
followed.
Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.
btw, I am opposed to cap punishment, for that reaqson. Otherwise,
its the morally correect thing to do, were we perfect at
deciding guilt.
When that day comes, we can open another discussion on it.
Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.
This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.
So, you are opposed to democracy, out of fear of
those who would not agree with you.
No, I am for following our Constitution. You know, like Article 5. I am
not for amending the Constitution based on a popular vote.
I am also against a popular vote for the civil rights of minorities.
That is known as the 'Tyranny of the Masses.'
From a non-profit group's website:
"The amendment is inconsistent with the spirit of the Minnesota
Constitution. The basic framework of our state's Constitution, and
particularly its Article I Bill of Rights, is to guarantee the rights
of citizens, not to restrict the rights of minorities. Amending the
Constitution to put the rights of a minority to a popular vote is
inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and with Minnesota's
civil rights tradition. Since 1948, Minnesota has been in the forefront
of support for civil rights protections when then-Minneapolis Mayor
Hubert Humphrey called upon America to "get out of the shadow of
states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of
human rights."
http://www.mncn.org/opposition_to_ma..._amendment.htm
I have yet to see a State Constitution that advocates refusing or
stripping rights from a minority. That runs exactly counter to what the
US stands (or stood) for.
Here are some other ways to look at democracy, all of which are very
true unless we're very careful about it:
*********************************************
Other ways to look at "Democracy": Democracy - more honestly called
"mobocracy" - is a political system based upon the concept that the
majority always rules... ...because they outnumber the minority, and
can beat them up.
Never doubt this: "Democracy" is rooted in pure brute force:
Every "fundamentalist" blue law imposed on a minority with differing
beliefs assumes that the unbelievers will be forced to obey.
Every majority election of a politician forces unwelcome
"representation" upon someone whose views that politician diametrically
opposes.
Democracy assumes that three illiterate morons are somehow wiser than
one Einstein-level genius... Simply because there are more of them;
they outnumber him, and can force their wills upon him.
Democracy says it is acceptable to take money or property from a
nonconsenting individual because he is outnumbered, a minority.
Democracy in its purest form is best illustrated by the robbery of a
helpless little old lady by a gang of thugs. It must be okay: The gang
"majority" out-voted the woman.
According to James Ostrowski: Democracy is nothing more than the
numerous and their manipulators bullying the less numerous. It is an
elaborate and deceptive rationalization for the strong in numbers to
impose their will on the electorally weak by means of centralized state
coercion ...
http://www.semperliber.org/Glossary.htm
************************************************** ******************
You are sounding like an old line Commie to me!
I am sounding like someone who understands that it is very dangerous to
have the majority in the form of a popular vote decide rights for a
minority. Debate is a good thing. Passion and emotion are not
necessarily a good thing. A representative republic like the US elects
representatives to make those decisions. People get mad that things
don't happen fast enough in Washington, but in some cases those
time-delays allow for thorough examination of issues and the thoughtful
debate that you say I do not want. That's where that type of debate
belongs, not in the world of one minute long political TV ads paid for
by PACs.