Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: In a perfect world...
> >From: rdubose{at}pdq.net
> >Date: 1/28/2005 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: In a perfect world...
> >> >From: rdubose{at}pdq.net
> >> >Date: 1/8/2005 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >By the time of the American revolution, the government of
G.>Brittain was a
> >constitutional parlaimentary system based on a fairly wide electoral
> >base. The> role of the King was secondary to parliment. In
> >fact, the system finally settled upon in America with
ourconstitution in 1789
> >> was no more democratic than the system in GB at the time.
> >>
> >> The balance of powers as created by our Constitution was
more>democratic
> from>> it's concept.
> >
> >One could argue that giving a non-elected body (the supreme
court)>and a
> semi-elected official (the President) absolute veto power over>the
popularly
> elected House of Representatives is anti-democratic.
>
> The balance of powers actually assures democracy when coupled with
the Bill of
> Rights.  People come to America from all over the world to view the
type of
> democracy that enables "we the people" to protect ourselves, not only
from our
> own govt., but also from tyranny of the masses. :-)
>
>  I>think it is a good idea, but it is indeed anti-democratic.
>
> Not really.  You're assuming that a true democracy must result in the
tyranny
> of the masses while I am not.  :-)>


Earlier you invoked the importance of the Bill of Rights. I could
not agree more that it is important but keep in mind that it is an
independent Supreme court that alone can gaurantee it. Afterall, the
Bill of Rights is mostly concerned with limiting what a legislature can
do to pass restrictive laws. A legislature, by itself, therefore, is
not to be trusted to limit itself.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.


> >>
> >> We did>not have a king getting in the way but no larger percentage
of
>  the>population could vote than in GB.
> >>
> > Property owners in both countries were accorded more rights than
> >non-property>> owners.  AND, in England, women could not always
inherit
> property,>thus could not have voted.
> >
> >Women have always had the right to own as much property as
they>could defend
> with their own arms.
>
> No, in fact they could not.  In many places women who exercised any
right they
> thought they had to bear arms were oft burned as witches.

So, women in the old days could have been feirce warriors slaying men
left and right except that were told that they would be called witches
if they did. And this was enough to stop them.
See, guys generally understand that overcoming oppression is very
dangerous and usually kills most of the first ones to try it. But we do
it anyway. Because safety is not ALWAYS our highest prioriy.


It's also difficult
> to defend oneself and ones property, not only against your enemies
but also
> against the male members of ones own family.

As if men would not have to defend themselves against the female
members of their own famililies?
>
> >Oh? You wanted someone to defend it for you? That is a different
> >matter.
>
> ????   I am of the opinion that women should not have to kill their
husbands,
> sons and brothers in order to defend their property.   I guess the
only
> difference is that today....women would.


Bullshit. It is really past time that you should give up your rant
about women warrior queens slaying men for the sake of feministic
principles.
Fighting is a social art. It is only done in an effective way in
cohesive, enthusiastic groups. There is no instance in recorded history
of a group of women fighting successfully to the death a group of men.
Not one. And there is a lot of history to consider.
The notion of the woman warrior is like the notion of the unicorn.
It is a  nice literary device, a neccessary symbol, a compelling image,
but not actually found in nature


> so.
>
> (edit)
> >
> >I get the feeling that you would give voting rights to illegal
aliens. They
> breathe the air here too, afterall.
> >
> No;  I think one must accept citizenship to vote.  However, aliens,
both legal
> and illegal do have rights just because they are in our wonderful
country.
> Voting rights demand citizenship, however, and THAT involves deciding
to accept
> the American way of doing things related to the vote.
> >
> >> >So when feminists get all angry about having no vote in
the>past,>they are
>  merely revealing the depth of their sense of entitlement vs>men.
> >> >
> >> No,women are simply more aware today that a group of elite white
men
> >stole>> what never belonged to them.
> >>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 9:41:15 AM ---