A loaded question indeed...way to post a push poll. How about "none of the above"? If only you had included a choice for those of us who would like to vote for a democratic republic where elected officials respect and adhere to the Constitution and are accountable to the people who elect them!
Onewho Sees - 16 years ago
Now, let's look @ this question. Equality is not Democracy. Democracy says the majority rules. This does not occur in the U.S. Nowhere is the majority ruling. If this is true then equality is true. We know that majority and equality are never true. Is affirmative action true? No I am discrimated against when equality is equal.
Our government (in this state) is mostly run by blacks. Very wrong because the laws of equality (inequality) put them there. This is not a racist remark, because the government should be gray based on equality. People who have the best should be hired in Government, not based on anything but that. I heard from Martin Luther King we should be based on character and not based on the color of our skin.
When whites become a minority (the future) , will we be treated the same as minorities are now. Will we be given the same rights (preferred treatment) as minorities are given today. Or will this still be equality and democracy?
NO,
J-Ill - 16 years ago
Man, talk about a loaded way to phrase a question...and a question without content, too. What about a bit of subtlety, such as distinguishing between positive liberty and negative liberty? If one thinks positive liberty is to be highly valued (and is undervalued by our current political arrangements), won't implementing positive liberty require using at least a modicum of authority? On the other hand, being anti-authoritarian, believing in democracy and equality goes quite nicely with negative conceptions of liberty...which (in its tendency to atomize society and protect the right of the powerful to exploit others) is contrary to the Common Good tradition I see you embracing. I suspect you'd call the sort of negative liberty advocated by the Republican Party sham or only partial liberty, and I'd agree strongly. I just don't think the rhetorical way you phrased this question is helpful at all.
A loaded question indeed...way to post a push poll. How about "none of the above"? If only you had included a choice for those of us who would like to vote for a democratic republic where elected officials respect and adhere to the Constitution and are accountable to the people who elect them!
Now, let's look @ this question. Equality is not Democracy. Democracy says the majority rules. This does not occur in the U.S. Nowhere is the majority ruling. If this is true then equality is true. We know that majority and equality are never true. Is affirmative action true? No I am discrimated against when equality is equal.
Our government (in this state) is mostly run by blacks. Very wrong because the laws of equality (inequality) put them there. This is not a racist remark, because the government should be gray based on equality. People who have the best should be hired in Government, not based on anything but that. I heard from Martin Luther King we should be based on character and not based on the color of our skin.
When whites become a minority (the future) , will we be treated the same as minorities are now. Will we be given the same rights (preferred treatment) as minorities are given today. Or will this still be equality and democracy?
NO,
Man, talk about a loaded way to phrase a question...and a question without content, too. What about a bit of subtlety, such as distinguishing between positive liberty and negative liberty? If one thinks positive liberty is to be highly valued (and is undervalued by our current political arrangements), won't implementing positive liberty require using at least a modicum of authority? On the other hand, being anti-authoritarian, believing in democracy and equality goes quite nicely with negative conceptions of liberty...which (in its tendency to atomize society and protect the right of the powerful to exploit others) is contrary to the Common Good tradition I see you embracing. I suspect you'd call the sort of negative liberty advocated by the Republican Party sham or only partial liberty, and I'd agree strongly. I just don't think the rhetorical way you phrased this question is helpful at all.