11-05-2004, 09:12 AM
|
#37
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
The pursuit of happiness, but not the pursuit of liberty.
Who said anyhting about liberty?
BTW which people where confuse pursuit with gaurantee?
As I said, MANY people all around you, mayhap even yourself from time to time think you are gaurenteed happiness. When we think we are gaurenteed happines...we are wrong
Oh and the the idea of a pursuit goes hand in hand with success or failure of the pursuit. I would argue that the pursuit of happiness is an implied gaurantee of happiness, if one can achieve it. I seriously doubt the particular wording amounts to a green light to arbritary limitation on happiness.
You seem to have wandered off the main line here...who was talking about limiting happiness? we were talking about gaurenteed results.
quote:
Equal as in they have the same rights....not that they have more or better rights than others.
If "WE THE PEOPLE" decide we don't want men marrying men and women marrying the women...those two minority groups better get used to it...cause the truth is..in this country the number of votes you can drumup deterines the laws of the land, like it or not....
|
Wow, the first sentence contradicts the rest of this rant.
'twasn't a rant. It was a matter of fact commentary on the way the "real" world operates and not the idealized version some people wander around thinking they're entitled to.
Sure in some cases the majority vote determines the law of the land, but not the supreme law of the land. It takes more than a mere majority to change the Constitution AND the Constitution can over-rule any given majority-determined law that is not a constitutional amendment.
You obviously have not been paying attention to civics lately. There have been a great MANY issues determined not by a majority but by a handful of Judicial types who are seizing power to legislate from the bench. Oh I grant that in the long run things tend to even out but in the short term..Mr. Joe agitator tends to get his butt trampled before the supremes get involved.
The bottomline from my perspective is that Any majority that uses their majority-status to trample, limit, or make unequal the civil rights of any given minorities is a shameful and worthless majority, with no true moral authority- no matter how much wind is blown to stake out that ground.
LOL now you sound like my 9th grader..."But Dad, that isn't fair". Me thinks you have a bit of idealist in you. Sorry that real life lets you down. 
Majorities have been gravely wrong before, history is full examples, so it maybe a fools errand to hang a hat on them without due consideration.
Chalk it up to my limited intellect but I have no idea what you mean here. Uless you are railing against the fact that the majority bullies the minority. That my dear friend is called, the law of the jungle. Minorities of any sort exist at the pleasure of and are at the mercy of the Majority. Always have and always will. Well technically there is a caveat to that as well....what I said is true untill you change the equation by introducing Superior Firepower to the minority...then the balance swings. But in general in any culture you wish to pick, the majority rules the local customs and mores and minorities for the most part are not well tolerated when their ideals and goals differ greatly enough from the majority.
[/QUOTE]
[ 11-05-2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|
|
|
|