neat analogy

[MyName]

nobodies rights should be ignored just because they are in the minority.

-ies SHOULD be y's if you're wanting to use that word in that context.

If you have time to do this while you're at work, then it seems you should have time to call me just to chat without being too busy, or work on the site.....or actually work. You know....something productive maybe?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

-ies SHOULD be y's if you're wanting to use that word in that context.

If you have time to do this while you're at work, then it seems you should have time to call me just to chat without being too busy, or work on the site.....or actually work. You know....something productive maybe?

anyone need a new wife?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This issue isn't worth a duel. Filibusters are not a Constitutional right - you can't find a thing about them in the Constitution.

Filibusters are part and parcel of the Senate rules. The Senate makes the Senate rules. The Senate can change the Senate rules. The Senate has every right to change the Senate rules regarding filibusters.

Contrary to the liberal propaganda lies about "minority rights" which you seem to be buying into, it is clear that the constitutional principle that governs both the House and the Senate is majority rule. The two bodies, House and Senate, are supposed to check each other, and in turn the legislative branch is supposed to be checked by the other two branches.

The lying scum liberals are attempting to propagandize that there is some sort of constitutional right to "minority rights" in the Senate itself. Lying scum liberals have always twisted the "minority rights" argument for years as political leverage in order to get their way. "Minority rights" do not exist in the Senate. Never have. Never will. Majority vote rules. Period.

If the Democrats want their way in the Senate, they need to go out and get some more Democrat Senators elected to vote on their side. That's how it works. I can't believe a smart guy like you is falling for the liberals' bogus argument about "minority rights" in the Senate.

history 101 - why was the senate created?

to protect, or give equal representation, to states with less population...hence protect minority rights.

 

[manu1959]

every time an amendment is summarily voted down along party lines with no compromise or 'give and take', every time the party in power pushes through it's agenda with no thought to the minority, thats when the minority rights are ignored. To claim that the minority still has representation when the majority does everything their way is the purest form of tyranny.

that is not a list...... that is a description of a sore loser.....

 

[manu1959]

then really all you're advocating is majority rules again. wheres the representation in that? and as I said last week, even if the minority becomes the majority, theres still a minority that loses their rights....is that right?

a right that a minority believes they deserve to advance their unpopular agenda (key words here "unpopular" or they would be the majority) and a constitutional right are two entirely different things

 

[Markainion]

history 101 - why was the senate created?

to protect, or give equal representation, to states with less population...hence protect minority rights.

The constitution was designed to protect states rights. Smaller states versus larger ones, that why the house and the senate have different distribution per state and why we have an electoral system instead of a single votes system.

The problem with this system is that minorities in these states weren’t being addressed. I think our founding fathers thought that if an individual didn’t agree with the majority in one state, they would simple move to different state or region closer to their values.

The biggest problem the state system faces is that of is race and ethnicity. The biggest problem racial minorities face is that most of them are dependent on the majority for their livelihood (this is a fact, I am not going into reasons). With this dependency minority can’t simple relocate themselves to gain a majority advantage in specific state or region? With out state majority, the simple don’t have the representation to have a strong voice in the United States.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

history 101 - why was the senate created?

to protect, or give equal representation, to states with less population...hence protect minority rights.

ooh. you have bowled me over with your erudition. yes that is true. now please explain how "minority rights" exist WITHIN the Senate as the lying liberal scum are trying to propagandize. let's see... maybe you can point out the written "minority rights within the Senate" listed somewhere in the Constitution? Maybe I missed that part?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

the rights of the minority are plastered throughout history from the speeches and words of the founding fathers, but I can see how you'd like to be unamerican now and just rewrite that part of history.

 

[Annie]

the rights of the minority are plastered throughout history from the speeches and words of the founding fathers, but I can see how you'd like to be unamerican now and just rewrite that part of history.

Try this...

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/Structuralsolutions.shtml

 

[manu1959]

Try this...

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/Structuralsolutions.shtml

it would appear that smarterthanyou is not

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the rights of the minority are plastered throughout history from the speeches and words of the founding fathers, but I can see how you'd like to be unamerican now and just rewrite that part of history.

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights through our Constitution and claiming "minority rights" that do NOT exist in our Constitution.

This hoopla about "minority rights" in the Senate is nothing more than deceitful smoke and mirrors to obtain a political objective.

Here's another example of liberal deceit: remember last election the liberal scum professed that the electoral vote was "unfair" and wanted to do away with it because all those red "minority" states were gaining electoral votes for Bush while their candidate was supposedly winning the popular "majority" vote. Obviously at that time the libs didn't give a hoot about "minority rights" - even those specifically protected in our Constitution.

The truth is liberals don't care about our Constitution, they wish to destroy it and the way our government is supposed to work, they only care about getting their way...any way they can. One minute they will talk about false "minority rights" (in the Senate) and then next they will claim "majority rights" (ditch the Constitutional electoral college)...whatever fits the bill for winning a given situation. And to hell with our Constitution. Now that's what I call "unamerican".

 

[MyName]

anyone need a new wife?

HOT DAMN IM FREE!
FREE AT LAST!!!!

errr...ummmm, I mean....boohoo?

 

[Hobbit]

There is a big difference between protecting minority rights through our Constitution and claiming "minority rights" that do NOT exist in our Constitution.

This hoopla about "minority rights" in the Senate is nothing more than deceitful smoke and mirrors to obtain a political objective.

Here's another example of liberal deceit: remember last election the liberal scum professed that the electoral vote was "unfair" and wanted to do away with it because all those red "minority" states were gaining electoral votes for Bush while their candidate was supposedly winning the popular "majority" vote. Obviously at that time the libs didn't give a hoot about "minority rights" - even those specifically protected in our Constitution.

The truth is liberals don't care about our Constitution, they wish to destroy it and the way our government is supposed to work, they only care about getting their way...any way they can. One minute they will talk about false "minority rights" (in the Senate) and then next they will claim "majority rights" (ditch the Constitutional electoral college)...whatever fits the bill for winning a given situation. And to hell with our Constitution. Now that's what I call "unamerican".

I'm gonna have to go with you on this one. If the roles were reversed, the Democrats would be screming bloody hell...making things the same as they are now, although they'd probably send it to the courts rather than put it to a vote, which is, of course, what this whole thing is all about.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

it would appear that smarterthanyou is not

WTF are you babbling about? It makes my point perfectly.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'm gonna have to go with you on this one. If the roles were reversed, the Democrats would be screming bloody hell...making things the same as they are now, although they'd probably send it to the courts rather than put it to a vote, which is, of course, what this whole thing is all about.

they tried this before and the republicans screamed bloody murder about minority rights then. buck up and stick up for minority rights now, don't be a hypocrite.

 

[5stringJeff]

history 101 - why was the senate created?

to protect, or give equal representation, to states with less population...hence protect minority rights.

Equal representation does not equal protecting minority rights. It means giving equal representation to all states in the upper legislative house - which has not failed to occur once since the Senate's inception.

I'm still not convinced.

 

[manu1959]

WTF are you babbling about? It makes my point perfectly.

no your point was that the government was not set up to protect the minority voice....the article specificaly states that it was set up to "split the baby" so that neither the majority nor the minority would have all the power.....one man's minority is another man's majority....futher...as i said rights you belive you are entitled to are much different than constitutional rights....i am still waiting on that list...

 

[SmarterThanYou]

no your point was that the government was not set up to protect the minority voice....the article specificaly states that it was set up to "split the baby" so that neither the majority nor the minority would have all the power.....one man's minority is another man's majority....futher...as i said rights you belive you are entitled to are much different than constitutional rights....i am still waiting on that list...

then you serioulsy misunderstood my point. My point was that the senate was created to ensure the voice and rights of the minority were not overrun by that of the majority.

The rights I believe I'm entitled to are clearly outlined in the bill of rights and the constitution. They are one in the same. as far as the list goes..........holding your breath might work.