daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/05/85)
> Uh, excuse me Ken, but about 30 MILLION people disagreed with that idea > last November. Good job Rob. A consise fact. > That says to me this is NOT what the people want. Too bad. I've suggested before you limit yourself to one sentence. I assume you are referring to the 30 million when you mention the people. I submit the theory that in most issues not everyone will agree. Are you suggesting a canidate must get every single vote in order to win? > Or are you suggesting that the majority (moral or otherwise) has the > right to FORCE its will on the minority? This is encouraging. You grasp of politics is increasing. In a working democracy the majority does rule. Would you have designed a system where the losers of an election would be the ones who took office? -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/06/85)
> > > That says to me this is NOT what the people want. > > Too bad. I've suggested before you limit yourself to one sentence. > I assume you are referring to the 30 million when you mention the people. > I submit the theory that in most issues not everyone will agree. > Are you suggesting a canidate must get every single vote in order to win? > > > Or are you suggesting that the majority (moral or otherwise) has the > > right to FORCE its will on the minority? > > This is encouraging. You grasp of politics is increasing. > In a working democracy the majority does rule. > Would you have designed a system where the losers of an election > would be the ones who took office? > -- > The Watcher > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf David, I must ask you to think in English rather than C when you post to this net. If you had read Arndt's article, which it appears you haven't, you would see that he does not define what HE means by people. I assumed he meant ALL people and replied accordingly. As to your second point, my grasp of politics is fine, but I'm concerned about yours. Besides the fact that the United States is NOT a democracy (It's a Republic), there were grave concerns from the inception of our country that the majority would FORCE it's will on the minority, outside of the law. That is why we have such things as the system of checks and balances, the Supreme Court, etc. I will be happy to loan you one of my college history texts if you want to persue this any further. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/07/85)
Subject: Re: FORCING 30 MILLION Newsgroups: net.politics References: <326@ccice6.UUCP> <663@ccice5.UUCP> > > > That says to me this is NOT what the people want. > > Too bad. I've suggested before you limit yourself to one sentence. > > I assume you are referring to the 30 million when you mention the people. > > I submit the theory that in most issues not everyone will agree. > > Are you suggesting a canidate must get every single vote in order to win? > > > Or are you suggesting that the majority (moral or otherwise) has the > > > right to FORCE its will on the minority? > > This is encouraging. You grasp of politics is increasing. > > In a working democracy the majority does rule. > > Would you have designed a system where the losers of an election > > would be the ones who took office? > David, I must ask you to think in English rather than C when you post to > this net. C involves logic and consistency. I realize you don't think using either, but I must decline to follow your example. > If you had read Arndt's article, which it appears you haven't, > you would see that he does not define what HE means by people. I assumed > he meant ALL people and replied accordingly. Rob, I was responding to you not Arndt. I am sorry I did not make that clear enough for you to understand. Furthermore you will see I defined what I intended people to mean. For your reference: "I assume you are referring to the 30 million when you mention the people." Since I lack the dubious ability to read between the lines I could not have known you were referring to ALL people. > As to your second point, my > grasp of politics is fine, but I'm concerned about yours. Besides the > fact that the United States is NOT a democracy (It's a Republic), That sentence above is the one you should have limited yourself to. I admit my error here. I spoke of democracy in terms of the dictionary definition. In the U.S. the majority rules which makes it democratic. > there > were grave concerns from the inception of our country that the majority > would FORCE it's will on the minority, outside of the law. That is why we > have such things as the system of checks and balances, the Supreme Court, > etc. Thats nice. I notice you never answered my original questions. > I will be happy to loan you one of my college history texts if you > want to persue this any further. Sorry Rob, I don't have time to read to you. ROB - THIS RESPONSE WAS TO THE ARTICLE ABOVE -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
john@bmcg.UUCP (John Wallner) (03/04/85)
> ... Besides the > fact that the United States is NOT a democracy (It's a Republic) > ... I've seen this statement on the net before. In fact, the United States is a democratic republic, a place where we elect our representatives (the distinctive trait of a republic) in popular elections (the distinctive trait of a democracy). John Wallner bmcg!john