RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:10:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steponme73

Well, say what you want, but Obama did not win the State of Texas.  We have some sense down here and are not swayed by fancy talk.  We saw him for what he was...to bad the rest of the country could not.  The sheeps of America elected him...now he is going to lead them to slaughter.


Since about half of Texans who voted voted for Obama does that mean that mean that Texans are only about half as smart as you think they are?
Just what kind of slaughter is Obama gonna lead the sheep to?
I thought dubya was from Texas.  Didn't he bring us the Patriot act.  700 billion dollars for his rich banker buddies, 200 billion dollars for the sandbox and how many body bags?
Yup...you sure have a lot to be proud of.
 
H.



Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:19:30 PM)

~ Fast Question ~
 
Considering the OP subject the question is 'on topic' although after 14 pages it may be not on recent topic. I have a question on this issue of "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" and how that has been appropriately applauded universally. However, is the concept accepted universally or only when the results fulfill a personal belief or agenda?

For example lets interject the THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN concept on another issue. In CA THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN regarding same sex marriage - It failed.

Why isn't the reaction of those on the losing side "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or a similar 'YEAH FOR DEMOCRACY'? Why is the reaction litigation, filed lawsuits, and a call for judiciary activism similar to what made same sex marriage legal in the first place. Is there a certain group that really only accepts and applauds THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN when the PEOPLE SPEAKING meets their agenda expectation?



DelilahDeb -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:49:39 PM)

OP:

I am unimpressed with the vehemence with which you titled this thread. If those who feel as you do represent the level of communication skills such as writing basic English correctly, then I fear for the culture of this country. One of the many aspects of our new president-elect that I respect is his command of the language. We have not had this quality of educated statesman and orator at the helm for several decades.

Grammatical error: number disagreement between subject "the people" and verb "has spoken".
The "people" is a plural noun (singular is person). Requires third-person plural helping verb "have".

Lady Delilah Deb



IAMChristine -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:56:52 PM)

awe B...did you know you were in for an english lesson when this all started?  hugs and let's get some coffee...



BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:56:57 PM)

Grabs my head,since my education and degrees happen so long ago maybe I have forgotten the proper use of the English language but who gives a shit..The people have spoken...



BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 3:58:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IAMChristine

awe B...did you know you were in for an english lesson when this all started?  hugs and let's get some coffee...


I hear you girl smile,with a major in history and a minor in english one would think this ol' man would watch his p and q's..lets get some high test...



IAMChristine -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:00:29 PM)

high test over a campfire?  how are the fish biting right now? 



Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:03:42 PM)

The United States was never intended to be a democracy. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of a dictator or the tyranny of a majority. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Yet we have come to the point where we elevate "democracy" above principles. This is unfortunate. It is much easier to get people to agree on principles than it is to get them to agree on lunch.

But I digress....

K.





BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:06:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IAMChristine

high test over a campfire?  how are the fish biting right now? 


Yeah hot and black just the thing on a cold morning and the trout are biting great...



IAMChristine -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:15:30 PM)

pan fried trout...hot, almost burnt coffee with a few grounds floating in it from the percolator...frost on the ground.  count me in B.  let's invite the president, he'll have fun too if he can handle campfire smoke and fishguts.



BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:18:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IAMChristine

pan fried trout...hot, almost burnt coffee with a few grounds floating in it from the percolator...frost on the ground.  count me in B.  let's invite the president, he'll have fun too if he can handle campfire smoke and fishguts.


My door is always open girl, I'll make you the social secetary to handle all the details...



Mercnbeth -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:30:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The United States was never intended to be a democracy. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of a dictator or the tyranny of a majority. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Yet we have come to the point where we elevate "democracy" above principles. This is unfortunate. It is much easier to get people to agree on principles than it is to get them to agree on lunch.

But I digress... the people have spoken.

K.


Stipulating to the text book correctness of the US being a Republic, lets make sure my understanding of your position is clear. The example of Obama wining is "the people have spoken", unlike say 2004 or any year not resulting in personal inclusion with "the people". When that is the case or the result as in the case of Proposition 8 in CA - it's an example of "tyranny". Is that a correct statement of your position?

Hypocrisy is something that can't be spun by semantics. There is no difference or "principle" involved. It would seem that your ideal would be a tyrannical dictator who just happens to have a similar ability to rationalize agenda through the use of warping 'principles'. 

To be clear - the result on Prop 8 is not one I supported in principle. However, similar to the result of the general election where my 'candidate' generated less than 1% of the vote, there is no rationalized prejudice or bigotry to be applied while accepting the result. The more important principles are acceptance and enforcement of any legal democratic process instead of being a hypocrite and only supporting those I happen to agree.

...but that's just me.



Bethnai -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 4:32:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Question ~
 
Considering the OP subject the question is 'on topic' although after 14 pages it may be not on recent topic. I have a question on this issue of "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" and how that has been appropriately applauded universally. However, is the concept accepted universally or only when the results fulfill a personal belief or agenda?

For example lets interject the THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN concept on another issue. In CA THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN regarding same sex marriage - It failed.

Why isn't the reaction of those on the losing side "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or a similar 'YEAH FOR DEMOCRACY'? Why is the reaction litigation, filed lawsuits, and a call for judiciary activism similar to what made same sex marriage legal in the first place. Is there a certain group that really only accepts and applauds THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN when the PEOPLE SPEAKING meets their agenda expectation?


Honestly, I do not think that Prop 8 should have been on the ballot. I think it is a right that is found under the 9th Amendment.  Democracy was a foul word at the inception of this country. It is the winner take all and tyranny of the majority. I have long held the view that California has made a major mistake by utilizing this method. I would like to see this go to the SC



Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 5:30:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Hypocrisy is something that can't be spun by semantics. There is no difference or "principle" involved. It would seem that your ideal would be a tyrannical dictator who just happens to have a similar ability to rationalize agenda through the use of warping 'principles'. 

And projection is not affected by what somebody actually says.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

To be clear - the result on Prop 8 is not one I supported in principle.... The more important principles are acceptance and enforcement of any legal democratic process instead of being a hypocrite and only supporting those I happen to agree.

So if twenty white men and three black men sit down to vote on who's going to leave town, the losers should shut up and pack? I don't think so. There is no hypocrisy in people celebrating an outcome they favor, and objecting to one they don't, when the only determining factor is other people's opinions. 

K.
 
 

 



HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 5:52:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Question ~
 
Considering the OP subject the question is 'on topic' although after 14 pages it may be not on recent topic. I have a question on this issue of "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" and how that has been appropriately applauded universally. However, is the concept accepted universally or only when the results fulfill a personal belief or agenda?

For example lets interject the THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN concept on another issue. In CA THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN regarding same sex marriage - It failed.

Why isn't the reaction of those on the losing side "THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN" or a similar 'YEAH FOR DEMOCRACY'? Why is the reaction litigation, filed lawsuits, and a call for judiciary activism similar to what made same sex marriage legal in the first place. Is there a certain group that really only accepts and applauds THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN when the PEOPLE SPEAKING meets their agenda expectation?


There are about 33 million people in California.  Of the 11 million who did vote the margin of victory for prop. 8 was about a half million.  About a third of the people have actually spoken and 1/66 of the people is hardly a mandate for anything.  Common' dude I have read a lot of your posts and you are way smarter than that.
 
H.



HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 6:03:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The United States was never intended to be a democracy. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of a dictator or the tyranny of a majority. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Yet we have come to the point where we elevate "democracy" above principles. This is unfortunate. It is much easier to get people to agree on principles than it is to get them to agree on lunch.

But I digress....

K.




Your characterization of the wolves and the sheep is a flawed analogy.  It would appear that you prefer the tyranny of the few as opposed to the tyranny of the many.  We have a constitution and a bill of rights.  We have a balance of power amongst the three branches of government.
 
quote:


So if twenty white men and three black men sit down to vote on who's going to leave town, the losers should shut up and pack? I don't think so. There is no hypocrisy in people celebrating an outcome they favor, and objecting to one they don't, when the only determining factor is other people's opinions. 


I take it here that your assumption is the white guys are bigots and the intent is to run the black guys off.  Lets suppose one of the white guys is a kinkster like yourself and all the rest are southern baptist.
The constitution and the rule of law prevent them from either scenario.
 
H.




Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 6:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

There are about 33 million people in California.  Of the 11 million who did vote the margin of victory for prop. 8 was about a half million.  About a third of the people have actually spoken and 1/66 of the people is hardly a mandate for anything.  Common' dude I have read a lot of your posts and you are way smarter than that.
 
Even if there was a mandate, in my opinion there would still be a problem. When the democratic process is limited by the principle that citizens should be free to do what they want so long as they cause no harm to their fellows (or debate a better wording), this and a host of other issues become academic. You can marry who you want. It's called, unh, you know, a free country.
 
K.
 
 



Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 6:23:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

It would appear that you prefer the tyranny of the few as opposed to the tyranny of the many.

Really? What, precisely, makes it "appear" that way?
 
K.
 
 
 



HunterS -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 6:50:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

It would appear that you prefer the tyranny of the few as opposed to the tyranny of the many.

Really? What, precisely, makes it "appear" that way?
 
K.
 
Perhaps it is your continual denigration of democracy with your characterization of it as being three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch.
If you are not in favor of majority rule then the implication is that you are in favor of minority rule.
 
H.

 
 



Kirata -> RE: THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN (11/5/2008 7:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

If you are not in favor of majority rule then the implication is that you are in favor of minority rule.

I am in favor of rule by principles, all matters within the compass of which, but not beyond, being subject to debate and vote.
 
K.
 



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02