From: Neil Harrington on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message

> U.S. help. We decry "terrorism," but we have feted Zionist terrorists and
> murderers like Mehadin Begin in the White House and never even mentioned

Meant to write Menachem Begin, sorry.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

[ . . . ]
> To me, it is very simple.....You say to Iran, "Tell you what....We have
> many fine nuclear engineers....Why don't you let us build you a reactor
> and supervise its use as a power plant for your energy needs?"

They already have the Russians to do that for them. They don't need us and
almost certainly don't want us.

> And when this is turned down, (as I'm certain it would be) then we should
> scramble the bombers bouquet fast......

You're far too ready to start bombing a country just for what you think it
might do. That is EXACTLY the sort of attitude that makes weaker countries
want to get nuclear weapons -- as the only possible defense against the
might and bellicosity of powerful nations like the U.S.

Enough people with an attitude like yours, and we all may get to see
radioactive dust coming down to coat the landscape everywhere some day. Oh
well. At least the cockroaches will probably survive, they say.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)> wrote in message news:hq7ofg$6e0$1(a)
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the
>>> minority from the tyranny of the majority,
>> And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous than
>> the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly do you
>> think democracy is supposed to work?
> Again, do you consider 48% a "tiny minority" because that's how many
> people voted to approve this the last time it was voted on. You keep
> spouting this "tiny fraction" when it is anything but.
> If you don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a problem, you might
> think about revisiting the civil rights issues in the 50's and 60's. If
> the "majority rules" about minority rights, they basically will never have
> any.
> Stephanie

Sure. My favorite example is a California petition to take some rich guy's
money away from him and distribute amongst everyone else....Somebody like
Bill Gates, or any super rich movie actor. So everyone signs the petition
because they have, "nothing to lose", and it gets on the ballot. And, once
on the ballot in California, you can be sure those idiots would vote for it,
so it wins by a landslide, and Bill Gates, (or whoever) loses all his money.
The US Constitution is what protects us from laws like that. That's why we
don't live in "A democracy where the majority rules." But rather in a
Constitutional Republic where the rule of the majority is tempered by, and
subject to the restraints of, the Constitution.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)> wrote in message news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)

> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
> should be allowed to control how other people live.
> Stephanie
I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I just
don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be allowed to
control how other people live." Only government and the law should have that
kind of power, and even they should be subject to the restraints of the
constitution. If there are no one else's rights involved, then someone
should be able to do whatever he/she damn well pleases.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)> wrote in message news:hq84ba$oer$1(a)
> Chris H wrote:
>> Agreed. BTW which religion are the "Religious right" in your country?
> They call themselves Christians..
> Stephanie

Yes, but the Christians would just refuse you the right to marry....Some
other religions would kill you for doing it.