Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (224131)	3/15/2005 3:31:28 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

when did you decide the minority should tell the majority what to do? 1994? 2000? 2002? 2004? And when did you decide America was a democracy?

To: tejek who wrote (224131)	3/15/2005 5:44:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570917

It was the GOP, not the democrats. It was the GOP that you mentioned, but it was also the GOP that was respecting democracy a lot more than the Dems on this issue. And the reason I said that is because constitutional amendments are meant to expand our freedoms, not to contract them 1 - Constitutional amendments are to amend the constitution for whatever reason is deemed necessary. 2 - This particular proposed amendment would have neither expanded nor contracted freedom. The majority does not always know what's right. Very true but you where arguing about democracy, not about "what's right". Its why we have judges. No we have judges to interpret the law, not impose what they think is right. And you wonder why I say the GOP has trouble with the concept of democracy. "Democracy", what is right (or really your version of what is right), and "constitutional" (according to a state courts interpretation of a state constitution) are three different things. A certain law or idea can be in accord with any one or two of those three without being in accord with the other two or one. You argue that allowing same sex marriage is what is right. You also argue that it is what CA's constitution allows for. The problem is that even if you are correct on both of those issues (and they could both be argued) that would not say anything about the concept of democracy. If you want to argue about democracy that make your argument about democracy. As it is your again showing the logical fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion" intrepidsoftware.com You argue about one thing and then claim to have shown something else. Tim