>> What equips you to make such a presumptive statement - you wouldn't be
>> average, would you?
>>
At 08:15 AM 12/15/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>absolutely not.
No one ever thinks that they are average. People are always willing to
exclude the "other guys" rights, but not their own because they are
"better". Yea Right. Here's a gentle reminder, just in case you forgot
where you live:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
We are all "The People", not just the elite, the super intelligent, etc.
We vote for someone to represent us. This gives us some say in the laws
that govern us. Without that say, the non-voting class would be slaves.
To find out just how bad the election process used to be, take a U.S.
History class at your local community college. Many offer it on cable.
Many of the old elections make todays look quite tame.
Sorry for the use of bandwidth to continue a topic that is way of topic.
At 08:15 AM 12/15/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>absolutely not.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karman, Al [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 4:08 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>>
>>
>> First, as a reminder to the list re a personal experience
>> when I posted OT
>> that didn't agree with some posters.......I found myself (repeatedly)
>> 'un-subscribed' from the list, so "poster emptor".
>>
>> Second, I'd like to respond to Dave Darnell when he says
>> ...
>> The average citizen in this country is not equipped educationally or
>> ethically to exercise a vote responsibly.
>>
>> What equips you to make such a presumptive statement - you wouldn't be
>> average, would you?
>>
>> Al Karman
>> IT Consultant
>> US Freightways
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 773.824.2284
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Darnell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:57 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Dave Darnell
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:53 PM
>> > To: 'Nick Demos'; [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: RE: OT: Microsoft Windows 2000 Advertising
>> >
>> >
>> While I'm at it, let me say that I've completely lost faith
>> in the principle
>> that every adult citizen (felonies notwithstanding) ought to
>> have the right
>> to vote.
>>
>> The average citizen in this country is not equipped educationally or
>> ethically to exercise a vote responsibly.
>>
>> Don't get me started on the criteria unless you want your
>> blood pressure to
>> go way up!
>>
>> -dtd
>>
>>
>>
>> > Nick wrote, in part:
>> >
>> >
>> > > 2. It is a shame that the one with the largest popular vote
>> > > does not get
>> > > "elected". Our "wonderful" politicians should have
>> > > fixed that a long time
>> > >
>> > > ago.
>> >
>> > From my point of view, which is both reactionary and that of
>> > a person who has lived most of his life in the less populated
>> > states, changing to a purely popular vote would be truly
>> > going in the wrong direction.
>> >
>> > Many of us still take the view, as did many of the Founding
>> > Fathers, that this "Nation" is as much a federation of states
>> > as it is a nation (so call me a Federalist.) The present
>> > system is a compromise between the extremes of totally
>> > Federal government and a loose confederation of independent
>> > states, both of which were common preferences in the late
>> > 18th century.
>> >
>> > I definitely do not want California and the East Coast
>> > deciding my fate!
>> >
>> > Aside:
>> > Those who read yesterday's Supreme Court opinion would
>> > realize that the states are not even compelled to hold a
>> > popular election for US President - the legislature may
>> > choose the electors if that is how the state wants to set it
>> > up. I like that a lot because then those in less populated
>> > congressional districts get more say per voter (via their
>> > elected representatives), and again, the city dwellers don't
>> > have sole determination over the results.
>> >
>> > -dtd
>> >
>> > -Dave
>> >
>>
>
Ric
[log in to unmask]
|
