From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Keywords: 'Y'
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:26:17 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug25.212637.5817@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
->Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
->Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
->what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?

 I agree, if everyone had your attitude, war would be the only solution.

->BINGO!  Give the man a prize.  I don't know how else to say it, Steve. 
->Just because the majority thinks something is right does not guarantee
->that it's right.  You, however, seem to think so.  People like you are
->very dangerous.  You're perfectly willing to give up your rights "on just
->this issue", and wonder what happened when the rest of their rights vanish.
->Look.  The basic purpose of the constitution is to guarantee the rights 
->of EVERYONE, not just the majority.  If you can't grasp that fundamental
->concept, it's hopeless for you.

 Obviously you havent finished reading the paragraph. 
 Explain why you trust a few political elitist politicians more than you
trust the millions of american citizens.

Steve Tyree writes.
->>government try to protect minority rights than which minorities will they
->>help and which minorities will they hurt. Ie - they help the mother who
->>wants abortion rights but kill the unborn child by not giving them rights.

->So, your position is that we shouldn't bother protecting minority rights?

 I said we shouldnt be asking the government to protect minority rights.
A famous quote about government redistributing money goes.
  "The government can never give more then it takes."
This quote can be directly tied to rights. The government can only give
extra rights to a certain group by taking them away from others.
This is why I believe in treating every human, born or unborn, as equal
under the law. And anyone who discriminates anyone else baced on ethnicity,
relighion, etc. should be punished. This includes a government which is
attempting to empower itself under the cloak of rights redistribution.
You sound just like Mario Cuomo.

->For someone who wanted to stay away from the abortion issue, you sure
->bring it up a lot.  Of course, if we DID vote on it, and abortion were
->deemed legal up to the time of birth, you'd change your principles and
->it'd be ok, right?

 Nathan pointed out that you cant debate the government deciding when
and who gets "rights" protection without discussing abortion or choice.
 I understood what he meant.
 My principles are based on thousands of issues. You do have a few billion
 neurons dont you ? The importance of each individual principle varies
 and this makes me individualistic. My main priority is in down sizing
 the role government plays in our lives. I realize that to downsize it
 will take everyone giving in on a few issues here and their. Thats 
 called give and take. Its the only way a basic set of values or ideals
 or common ground can be forged.

->I thought you weren't the one deciding which issues were worthy of a vote.
->Sure sounds like you've decided what they are to me.  Oh - excuse me. 
->These are the issues on which Steve is willing to abandon his principles
->simply because the majority says he should.  My mistake.

 These are issues which I am willing to allow the majority to decide.
We need to have a priority list created by "we the people". If 75 percent
of the people feel that drug legalization should be decided by the people
than lets give them that right. In case you havent noticed yet, Im trying
to reach a point in the future when the need for statist government is
deleted. If 90 percent of the people want to vote on the condoms in school
issue, lets empower them and give them the vote.
 The entire issue is based on moving empowerment away from a few self 
annointed elites and empowering the citizens of this magnificent country.
This ideal seems to scare the heck out of liberals. Why is that ?

>I see (I'm lying).  The people decide that the people should vote on this
>issue or that one.  I give up.

 You give the people a list of issues. They vote on whether the majority
should rule on them. Then the issues which seem most important to the people
are voted on. The people decide which issues should not be decided by BIG
Government Elites. They choose which empowerments they want.

>You're no individualist.  Not if you're willing to let the majority of
>people tell you what's right, simply because they're the majority.  You're
>just one more sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.

 So you think that the majority of the people of this country want to be
slaughtered. No wonder you dont want to empower them. I am an Individualist
whos willing to give in on a few issues to strike common ground with other
individualist to take power away from the socialist. The issues should be
decided by the majority of Individuals not the few Elitists which you seem
to worship on capitol hill.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.