From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:10:27 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 'Y'

In article <1849@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.212637.5817@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> I agree, if everyone had your attitude, war would be the only solution.
>
> Explain why you trust a few political elitist politicians more than you
>trust the millions of american citizens.

How many times do I have to say it Steve?  Please listen this time, ok?
I can vote the political "elitist" out.  With majority rule, I have NO
recourse.  Kapish?
>
>->>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.
> ...
>You sound just like Mario Cuomo.

Excuse me, Steve, but you don't know diddly squat about *anything* I 
believe beyond:

   - Majority rule is a Bad Thing
   - If Dan Quayle had half a brain he'd be out looking for the other half

If you think that equates me with Cuomo, you are a fool.

This is what I know about your beliefs:

   You think that any issue upon which the public is divided should be
   decided by a vote of the majority.  Furthermore, it is the public
   itself which decides what is divisive.  Beyond that, I don't know
   where you stand on anything, because a majority vote can change it.

Do I understand your position correctly?

>
>->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.

Apparently, you didn't understand the question.  All it requires is a 
simple yes or no.  Three keystrokes, max.  Care to try again?

> 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

No.  This makes you an individual who is willing to abandon personal rights,
freedoms and beliefs for the "common good".  Sounds kinda Marxist to me.

> 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.

We already have the common ground.  It's called "The Constitution".
>
>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.
>
> 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.

Gee Steve, why stop there?  Let's assault the second ammendment and vote
on the right to own a gun.  And hey, that liberal press is really getting
out of hand, right?  We really don't need to have first ammendment now,
do we?  And while we're at it, an innocent person has nothing to fear
from searches or self-incrimination, so who needs protection from those
things but the guilty, right?
>
>>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.

You don't want to empower the individual, you want to empower the majority.

Steve, enabling majority rule is like opening Pandora's Box.  Who knows?
In the short term, it just might solve these pressing problems.  But I
guarantee you this: once the majority has solved the "big" problems, 
they'll turn their attention to those pesky "individualists" who just
can't seem to see it their way.  Is that what you want?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Quayle doesn't inhale (which explains a LOT)."
                   ---William Hsu
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc