Which is better?

[LoneLaugher]

really? do you support the discrimination called affirmative action? do you think people today should be punished to "get even" for something that might have been done by their great great grandfathers?

what is it about equal opportunity that gives you pause?

You said that...today....we are going overboard on minority view while ignoring the views of the majority. I disagree. We are following the same Constitution.....with elections being held in the same manner......we always have.

I wonder....is your focus on affirmative action and your alluding to reparations indicative of some inner struggle?

not at all, I merely used affirmative action as an example of discrimination that is going on today.

much of the focus on minority issues today is being done by the administration to take the attention from the terrible job that obama has done with the economy, our staggering national debt, high unemployment, rising numbers on food stamps, huge numbers in poverty, and international blunders like Benghazi and weapons being given to the muslim brotherhood.

I won't address your laundry list of talking points......but let me ask you.....do you think affirmative action cases are more frequent now....or 30 years ago?

 

[Redfish]

Liberals are the majority. You are wrong.

only in hollywood and the media--------in the real USA most people are center right.

but continue your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

If we were 'center right", all you nutters would not be bitching so much. You'd be gloating.

This is not brain science.

If the GOP had run a decent ticket in the last two elections, obama would still be hustling on the streets of chicago.

All polls and studies have shown that a majority of americans are just to right of center on most issues, the west coast and the northeast being exceptions---------fortunately for you libtards, those two areas have a lot of electoral votes.

 

[Redfish]

You said that...today....we are going overboard on minority view while ignoring the views of the majority. I disagree. We are following the same Constitution.....with elections being held in the same manner......we always have.

I wonder....is your focus on affirmative action and your alluding to reparations indicative of some inner struggle?

not at all, I merely used affirmative action as an example of discrimination that is going on today.

much of the focus on minority issues today is being done by the administration to take the attention from the terrible job that obama has done with the economy, our staggering national debt, high unemployment, rising numbers on food stamps, huge numbers in poverty, and international blunders like Benghazi and weapons being given to the muslim brotherhood.

I won't address your laundry list of talking points......but let me ask you.....do you think affirmative action cases are more frequent now....or 30 years ago?

I don't have the stats on that, since you brought it up you must have them. My guess is that the number of cases has decreased.

But thats not the point of bringing it up. affirmative action discriminates against certain races, and males in general.

I thought liberals were against all forms of discrimination. Are you or not?

 

[LoneLaugher]

only in hollywood and the media--------in the real USA most people are center right.

but continue your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

If we were 'center right", all you nutters would not be bitching so much. You'd be gloating.

This is not brain science.

If the GOP had run a decent ticket in the last two elections, obama would still be hustling on the streets of chicago.

All polls and studies have shown that a majority of americans are just to right of center on most issues, the west coast and the northeast being exceptions---------fortunately for you libtards, those two areas have a lot of electoral votes.

Why didn't they run a "decent" ticket?

And...I think you meant to say that Obama would be legislating in the US Senate. You are a fucking tool.......don't you agree?

 

[LoneLaugher]

not at all, I merely used affirmative action as an example of discrimination that is going on today.

much of the focus on minority issues today is being done by the administration to take the attention from the terrible job that obama has done with the economy, our staggering national debt, high unemployment, rising numbers on food stamps, huge numbers in poverty, and international blunders like Benghazi and weapons being given to the muslim brotherhood.

I won't address your laundry list of talking points......but let me ask you.....do you think affirmative action cases are more frequent now....or 30 years ago?

I don't have the stats on that, since you brought it up you must have them. My guess is that the number of cases has decreased.

But thats not the point of bringing it up. affirmative action discriminates against certain races, and males in general.

I thought liberals were against all forms of discrimination. Are you or not?

If it has decreased ( it has ) then you are stupid to use it as your supporting evidence....that we are moving toward GREATER minority precedence.

Try harder.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you the best person to argue this case? I don't think so.

 

[Redfish]

Are you the best person to argue this case? I don't think so.

^^^sounds like an admission of defeat---------surrender accepted.

 

[Redfish]

I won't address your laundry list of talking points......but let me ask you.....do you think affirmative action cases are more frequent now....or 30 years ago?

I don't have the stats on that, since you brought it up you must have them. My guess is that the number of cases has decreased.

But thats not the point of bringing it up. affirmative action discriminates against certain races, and males in general.

I thought liberals were against all forms of discrimination. Are you or not?

If it has decreased ( it has ) then you are stupid to use it as your supporting evidence....that we are moving toward GREATER minority precedence.

Try harder.

I used it as an EXAMPLE, nowhere did I say it was more or less today than in the past. AA gives preference to minorties (and the female majority) and is therefore discrimination.

thats the only point I was trying to make-----sorry if it was too complex for you.

 

[Pete7469]

majority rules or minority rules. there is no other option in human civilization, so which is it?

comments please.

If those are the only two options, majority.

Logically, if you have 100 people, the law should be set to what 70 people want, vs what the minority 30 want.

Not a perfect system, but the best of the two options you outlined.

.

Wouldn't doing what would be most beneficial for the majority the most logical?

Would forcing the wealthiest 49.9% to subsidize all the wants and needs of the less wealthy 50.1% be logical?

 

[Intense]

There is an alternative!
A society in which the individual has irrevokable rights that uses majority rule for all things except those that might infringe on the individual's rights. That system of government is called a republic and it is the one that was put in place more than two hundred years ago when the states united to form the United States of America. It could still work if people would just understand that individual rights don't cause harm only unlawful acts cause harm.

I'm shocked!!! You are not suggesting that we actually incorporate the Principles of a Constitutional based Federal Republic? I mean, really!!! If we did actually try it with the division of Enumerated Powers and 3 equal Branches, it would be a first. I mean, it's never actually been done before. Hamilton and the Marshal Court saw to that. It has been a great Puppet Show, though.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you the best person to argue this case? I don't think so.

^^^sounds like an admission of defeat---------surrender accepted.

I wonder if you know that nutters often claim victory when getting their ass handed to them. Of course you don't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

This also makes no sense.

Let’s review:

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

The above quoted makes no sense because it’s devoid of any specific examples and addresses no known legal doctrine – it’s gibberish.

For example, there is the legal doctrine of presumed constitutionality, where all acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. See, e.g., Ogden v. Saunders (1827), US v. Lopez (1995).

If a minority believes it is being unfairly targeted by a given law, that class of persons may file suit in Federal court to challenge that law; if the court upholds the law, then the law is Constitutional and no minority is not being treated unfairly.

With regard to so-called ‘affirmative action,’ some policies have been upheld by the Court as Constitutional and other not; the Court has allowed ‘affirmative action’ to be implemented in only a few very narrowly tailored examples, addressing only public sector entities or private sector entities doing business with government.

But again, without any specific examples of a particular ‘affirmative action’ policy or other law or measure, the quoted above is pure nonsense.

 

[Redfish]

Are you the best person to argue this case? I don't think so.

^^^sounds like an admission of defeat---------surrender accepted.

I wonder if you know that nutters often claim victory when getting their ass handed to them. Of course you don't.

since you are clearly a "nutter" then I agree completely.

BTW your avatar is a very sick attempt to denigrate the Christian faith. welcome to my ignore list.

 

[LoneLaugher]

^^^sounds like an admission of defeat---------surrender accepted.

I wonder if you know that nutters often claim victory when getting their ass handed to them. Of course you don't.

since you are clearly a "nutter" then I agree completely.

BTW your avatar is a very sick attempt to denigrate the Christian faith. welcome to my ignore list.

I offended your PC sensibilities? Oh so sorry!

 

[Redfish]

I started this thread by asking the question: which is better majority rule or minority rule.

the discussion has been all over the place, but a few have actually addressed the question.

Its funny how such a simple question can become so entangled in partisan rhetoric and talking points.

Its also funny to watch the liberals dodge the question because they fear that an honest answer would somehow weaken their arguments for things like gay marriage and amnesty.

Minority rule was common in europe under various monarchies and dictatorships, our founders came here and wrote our constitution in order to escape the tyranny that is inherent in minority rule.

Many on the left seem to equate the word "rule" with stomping on the rights of minorities while they ignore the fact that minority rights were established and protected by majority votes.

I think this has run its course. I am somewhat disappointed in the dialog, but not surprised by the ignorance displayed by many of our liberal friends.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holy shit............talk about turning tail........

 

[Redfish]

This message is hidden because LoneLaugher is on your ignore list.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lame.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I started this thread by asking the question: which is better majority rule or minority rule.

the discussion has been all over the place, but a few have actually addressed the question.

Its funny how such a simple question can become so entangled in partisan rhetoric and talking points.

Its also funny to watch the liberals dodge the question because they fear that an honest answer would somehow weaken their arguments for things like gay marriage and amnesty.

Minority rule was common in europe under various monarchies and dictatorships, our founders came here and wrote our constitution in order to escape the tyranny that is inherent in minority rule.

Many on the left seem to equate the word "rule" with stomping on the rights of minorities while they ignore the fact that minority rights were established and protected by majority votes.

I think this has run its course. I am somewhat disappointed in the dialog, but not surprised by the ignorance displayed by many of our liberal friends.

Minority rule was common in europe under various monarchies and dictatorships, our founders came here and wrote our constitution in order to escape the tyranny that is inherent in minority rule.

Actually, the Founding Generation created our Constitutional Republic to protect all persons from the tyranny of both the majority and minority, but more so the former.

Many on the left seem to equate the word "rule" with stomping on the rights of minorities while they ignore the fact that minority rights were established and protected by majority votes.

Again, all civil liberties are inalienable, all persons – in the ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ – have the same rights, innate and inviolate; consequently rights were not established by any majority, and are subject to no vote.

No one on ‘the left’ is ‘stomping’ on anyone’s rights, majority or minority.

 

[Agit8r]

Liberals are the majority. You are wrong.

only in hollywood and the media--------in the real USA most people are center right.

but continue your fantasy if it makes you feel good.

If we were 'center right", all you nutters would not be bitching so much. You'd be gloating.

This is not brain science.

See, it is one of those things where one definition is used for one thing and another definition for another.

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

See, moderates are centrist to center-right, so they count them as part of their majority, while they still consider them "commie-nist" on almost every issue.