Re: Why I Published Those Cartoons

"Lee Michaels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip article>

It is ineresting that the Muslims seem to think that their religion takes
prioity over everything else in the world. I know one thing that they are
very sinsitive too is that at one time they were the leaders in
civilization. They are also much more intolerant than they used to be.

And

Quoted message said:

they whole concept of owning up to things and being responsible doesn't

seem

Quoted message said:

to be a part of these extreme religious wacko's trachings either.

I don't know that they are really more intolerant today. The whole, "Islam
is a much more tolerant religion than Christianity," is based on the way it
was back in the Dark Ages.
Well, okay it was more tolerant than Christianity while the inquisition was
going on, hell Hilter was more understanding.

Quoted message said:

The many accomplishments that have occurred in the western worlds have to

do

Quoted message said:

with democracy and tolerance of many different cultures. There is nothing
civilized about how many muslims have reacted to some cartoons. Imagine,

a

Quoted message said:

worldwide reaction of savagery to cartoons.

Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).
Right, one of the main reasons that the rest of the world moved on past the
1200's is because of freedom (something lacking in the Islamic world).
Now of course, they are [censored] that the rest of world left them behind.

Quoted message said:

Is it really all that difficult to figure out who is civilized here? Or

who

Quoted message said:

the savages are?

Here? In MFW?
We're all savage as f&#%
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <[email hidden]>,

Lee Michaels said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip article>

It is ineresting that the Muslims seem to think that their religion takes
prioity over everything else in the world. I know one thing that they are
very sinsitive too is that at one time they were the leaders in
civilization. They are also much more intolerant than they used to be. And
they whole concept of owning up to things and being responsible doesn't seem
to be a part of these extreme religious wacko's trachings either.

The many accomplishments that have occurred in the western worlds have to do
with democracy and tolerance of many different cultures. There is nothing
civilized about how many muslims have reacted to some cartoons. Imagine, a
worldwide reaction of savagery to cartoons.

Is it really all that difficult to figure out who is civilized here? Or who
the savages are?

Nope. They are at least 1000 years behind the west.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

Quoted message said:

Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

Quoted message said:

Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Anarchy?

Lee Michaels said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip article>

It is ineresting that the Muslims seem to think that their religion takes
prioity over everything else in the world. I know one thing that they are
very sinsitive too is that at one time they were the leaders in
civilization. They are also much more intolerant than they used to be. And
they whole concept of owning up to things and being responsible doesn't seem
to be a part of these extreme religious wacko's trachings either.

The many accomplishments that have occurred in the western worlds have to do
with democracy and tolerance of many different cultures. There is nothing
civilized about how many muslims have reacted to some cartoons. Imagine, a
worldwide reaction of savagery to cartoons.

Is it really all that difficult to figure out who is civilized here? Or who
the savages are?

"Savages"? Too many Muslims, apparently, but not all.

Consider, for example, Sheikh Palazzi. Lots to Google

Quoted message said:

"With a doctorate in Islamic sciences from the Institute for Islamic
Studies and Research in Naples (by authorization of the former Grand
Mufti of Saudi Arabia), and ijazzah (authorization to teach) both
Koranic exegesis and Islamic law from the prestigious University of
al-Azhar as-Sharif in Cairo, Palazzi backs his somewhat surprising
positions with citations from the Koran and traditional Muslim
sources."
http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001627.htm

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/amislam/

http://stepan.redstate.com/story/2006/2/8/214122/0279

Or how about this? http://www.secularislam.org/

Don't expect feedback from me. I'll be computer-challenged for a week
or so starting tomorrow.

Quoted message said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

Quoted message said:

Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

We do?
We are a Representive Republic. Within that, there are democratic processes
(where most everyone can vote for their representive). A true democracy is
mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and every
decision made--the Greeks found that out.
Like I said, a minor point since most people use the word democracy to
refer to our form of government (though it is not truly correct).
We certainly could have a "democracy" without freedom (we are getting more
and more like that every day here), but the point was it was the freedom
that we had that led to our development of so much over the last 300 years.
The age of enlightment was because people had the freedom to investigate
what interested them.
We have lost much of that today. With so much government regulation today
kids cannot even have a junior chemistry set (hell, water would probably be
deemed a precursor to drugs).
The very freedom that made this country a superpower, has been regulated
away by the phrase, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"
We have been saved from ourselves, and doomed in the process.
But hey, I like to think positive thoughts, so I try not to think about
that!

--
----
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
si vis pacem, para bellum

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <[email hidden]>,

Willow Herself said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

>
Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Anarchy?

Suppose so, but I bet it would be a short lived freedom.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

>
Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

We do?

We do what? It was a question.

Quoted message said:

We are a Representive Republic. Within that, there are democratic processes
(where most everyone can vote for their representive). A true democracy is
mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and every
decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Quoted message said:

Like I said, a minor point since most people use the word democracy to
refer to our form of government (though it is not truly correct).

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

We certainly could have a "democracy" without freedom (we are getting more
and more like that every day here),

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy. We
wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

Quoted message said:

but the point was it was the freedom
that we had that led to our development of so much over the last 300 years.
The age of enlightment was because people had the freedom to investigate
what interested them.
We have lost much of that today.

Agreed!!! I fear for this great nation.

Quoted message said:

We have been saved from ourselves, and doomed in the process.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;
but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for
they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> >
> Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
> difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

We do?

We do what? It was a question.

Quoted message said:

We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are democratic

processes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true democracy

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and every
decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms. A benign King would be the
ideal world. A ruler concerned with the governance of the country, leaving
the people to do as they like.
Remember the only democratic process in our government was supposed to be
the House of Representatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like I said, a minor point since most people use the word democracy to
refer to our form of government (though it is not truly correct).

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

We certainly could have a "democracy" without freedom (we are getting

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and more like that every day here),

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy. We
wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

I disagree. We are loosing our freedoms because too much of the voting
public are idiots (that is the problem with democratic processes--when you
have a lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed population--mob rule turns ugly).
I say that not because they do not vote the way I do, but because they often
do not even have a clue as to what they are voting on!
Look what happened in Florida 6 years ago. Many of the voters votes were
thrown out because they voted for two different people for president.
How could that happen???
They voted for Gore on page one, then turned the page over. Well there was
another list of candidates on that page (most were communist candidates), so
they voted for someone on that page as well.
Why?
It was another page, they had to vote for someone!!
It is that kinda of voting (never considered by the founders of this
country), that we get the idiots in office that we have today. The majority
votes in those who they think will "give" them the most. Once the liberals
get more that 50% of the population into a "no income tax" bracket (and
they are working on it), the democracy of this country will enslave those
who work because it is the right thing.

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> >
> Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
> difference).

How does one have freedom without democracy?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

We do?

We do what? It was a question.

Quoted message said:

We are a Representive Republic. Within that, there are democratic

processes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(where most everyone can vote for their representive). A true democracy

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and every
decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms. A benign King would be the
ideal world. A ruler concerned with the governance of the country, leaving
the people to do as they like.
Remember the only democratic process in our government was supposed to be
the House of Representatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like I said, a minor point since most people use the word democracy to
refer to our form of government (though it is not truly correct).

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

We certainly could have a "democracy" without freedom (we are getting

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and more like that every day here),

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy. We
wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

I disagree. We are loosing our freedoms because too much of the voting
public are idiots (that is the problem with democratic processes--when you
have a lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed population--mob rule turns ugly).
I say that not because they do not vote the way I do, but because they often
do not even have a clue as to what they are voting on!
Look what happened in Florida 6 years ago. Many of the voters votes were
thrown out because they voted for two different people for president.
How could that happen???
They voted for Gore on page one, then turned the page over. Well there was
another list of candidates on that page (most were communist candidates), so
they voted for someone on that page as well.
Why?
It was another page, they had to vote for someone!!
It is that kinda of voting (never considered by the founders of this
country), that we get the idiots in office that we have today. The majority
votes in those who they think will "give" them the most. Once the liberals
get more that 50% of the population into a "no income tax" bracket (and
they are working on it), the democracy of this country will enslave those
who work because it is the right thing.

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very important
> > difference).
>
> How does one have freedom without democracy?
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>

We do?

We do what? It was a question.

Quoted message said:

We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are democratic

processes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true democracy

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and every
decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms.

That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are a
right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
neither granted or taken away by Kings.

Quoted message said:

A benign King would be the
ideal world. A ruler concerned with the governance of the country, leaving
the people to do as they like.

That would simply be the illusion of freedom. Any freedom "granted" by a
king can be removed.

"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas
Jeferson

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy. We
wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

I disagree. We are loosing our freedoms because too much of the voting
public are idiots (that is the problem with democratic processes--when you
have a lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed population--mob rule turns ugly).
I say that not because they do not vote the way I do, but because they often
do not even have a clue as to what they are voting on!
Look what happened in Florida 6 years ago. Many of the voters votes were
thrown out because they voted for two different people for president.
How could that happen???
They voted for Gore on page one, then turned the page over. Well there was
another list of candidates on that page (most were communist candidates), so
they voted for someone on that page as well.
Why?
It was another page, they had to vote for someone!!
It is that kinda of voting (never considered by the founders of this
country), that we get the idiots in office that we have today. The majority
votes in those who they think will "give" them the most. Once the liberals
get more that 50% of the population into a "no income tax" bracket (and
they are working on it), the democracy of this country will enslave those
who work because it is the right thing.

I dont see how the above counters what I said but adds another variable
to why our freedoms are being taken away.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very

important

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > difference).
> >
> > How does one have freedom without democracy?
> >
> > --
> > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> >
>
> We do?

We do what? It was a question.

> We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are democratic

processes

Quoted message said:

> (where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true

democracy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

> mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms.

That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are a
right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
neither granted or taken away by Kings.

Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A benign King would be the
ideal world. A ruler concerned with the governance of the country,

leaving

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the people to do as they like.

That would simply be the illusion of freedom. Any freedom "granted" by a
king can be removed.

"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas
Jeferson

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy.

We

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

I disagree. We are loosing our freedoms because too much of the voting
public are idiots (that is the problem with democratic processes--when

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed population--mob rule turns ugly).
I say that not because they do not vote the way I do, but because they

often

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do not even have a clue as to what they are voting on!
Look what happened in Florida 6 years ago. Many of the voters votes were
thrown out because they voted for two different people for president.
How could that happen???
They voted for Gore on page one, then turned the page over. Well there

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another list of candidates on that page (most were communist

candidates), so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they voted for someone on that page as well.
Why?
It was another page, they had to vote for someone!!
It is that kinda of voting (never considered by the founders of this
country), that we get the idiots in office that we have today. The

majority

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

votes in those who they think will "give" them the most. Once the

liberals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get more that 50% of the population into a "no income tax" bracket

(and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are working on it), the democracy of this country will enslave

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who work because it is the right thing.

I dont see how the above counters what I said but adds another variable
to why our freedoms are being taken away.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Democratic processes, in and of themselves, do not lead to greater freedom.
They were specifically guarded against by the founding fathers. They knew
that mod rule, would remove freedom. We can see that today in our country.
It is the democratic process (and the media manipulation of the lazy,
ignorant masses) that has removed our freedoms. It is infact the excess of
democracy that has reduced our freedoms.
Our freedoms are being removed because we have democratic process where they
were not intended.
The Senate was not intended to be voted in. They were supposed to be
appointed to the position (the states could decided how they were
selected--today, all are done by popular vote). Thus they kept the states
best interest in mind.
The HR was intended to be a check on the Senate (the HR was to be the
popular vote), the Senate a check on the HR (the Senate once removed from
popularity, so they could consider with immediate removal). Taint so today.
Since both are subjected to a popularity contest, then do not check each
other, they go hand in hand. Pandering to the populace by giving them more
has given us the government we have.
The President as well, not intended to be subjected to a popularity contest,
thus the electoral college method.
The masses are too lazy to take responsibility for themselves, so they
transfer more control of their lives to the central government every day.
The people in government desire that power, so they suck it up and pander to
the ignorant masses.
Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very

important

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > difference).
> >
> > How does one have freedom without democracy?
> >
> > --
> > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> >
>
> We do?

We do what? It was a question.

> We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are democratic

processes

Quoted message said:

> (where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true

democracy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

> mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> decision made--the Greeks found that out.

I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.

Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms.

That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are a
right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
neither granted or taken away by Kings.

Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A benign King would be the
ideal world. A ruler concerned with the governance of the country,

leaving

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the people to do as they like.

That would simply be the illusion of freedom. Any freedom "granted" by a
king can be removed.

"Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas
Jeferson

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't agree. We have less democracy which = less freedoms, which, if
left unchecked, means we will simply stop actually being a democracy.

We

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wont have a democracy without freedom however, we will simplyfail to
actually be a democracy.

I disagree. We are loosing our freedoms because too much of the voting
public are idiots (that is the problem with democratic processes--when

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a lazy, ignorant, self-absorbed population--mob rule turns ugly).
I say that not because they do not vote the way I do, but because they

often

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do not even have a clue as to what they are voting on!
Look what happened in Florida 6 years ago. Many of the voters votes were
thrown out because they voted for two different people for president.
How could that happen???
They voted for Gore on page one, then turned the page over. Well there

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another list of candidates on that page (most were communist

candidates), so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they voted for someone on that page as well.
Why?
It was another page, they had to vote for someone!!
It is that kinda of voting (never considered by the founders of this
country), that we get the idiots in office that we have today. The

majority

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

votes in those who they think will "give" them the most. Once the

liberals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get more that 50% of the population into a "no income tax" bracket

(and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are working on it), the democracy of this country will enslave

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who work because it is the right thing.

I dont see how the above counters what I said but adds another variable
to why our freedoms are being taken away.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Democratic processes, in and of themselves, do not lead to greater freedom.
They were specifically guarded against by the founding fathers. They knew
that mod rule, would remove freedom. We can see that today in our country.
It is the democratic process (and the media manipulation of the lazy,
ignorant masses) that has removed our freedoms. It is infact the excess of
democracy that has reduced our freedoms.
Our freedoms are being removed because we have democratic process where they
were not intended.
The Senate was not intended to be voted in. They were supposed to be
appointed to the position (the states could decided how they were
selected--today, all are done by popular vote). Thus they kept the states
best interest in mind.
The HR was intended to be a check on the Senate (the HR was to be the
popular vote), the Senate a check on the HR (the Senate once removed from
popularity, so they could consider with immediate removal). Taint so today.
Since both are subjected to a popularity contest, then do not check each
other, they go hand in hand. Pandering to the populace by giving them more
has given us the government we have.
The President as well, not intended to be subjected to a popularity contest,
thus the electoral college method.
The masses are too lazy to take responsibility for themselves, so they
transfer more control of their lives to the central government every day.
The people in government desire that power, so they suck it up and pander to
the ignorant masses.
Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very

important

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > difference).
> > >
> > > How does one have freedom without democracy?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> > >
> >
> > We do?
>
> We do what? It was a question.
>
> > We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are democratic
processes
> > (where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true

democracy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is
> > mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each and

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > decision made--the Greeks found that out.
>
> I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does one
> have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other form of
> government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.
>
Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever existed,
almost any form of government can give freedoms.

That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are a
right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
neither granted or taken away by Kings.

Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.

Quoted message said:

Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

I don't agree and no King "allowing" freedoms could ever give true
freedom. The process aint perfect, and much of what you said is true
regarding the stupid masses, but it's still the best system going on the
planet.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > >

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> > > > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very

important

Quoted message said:

> > > > > difference).
> > > >
> > > > How does one have freedom without democracy?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > > We do?
> >
> > We do what? It was a question.
> >
> > > We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are

democratic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> processes
> > > (where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true

democracy

Quoted message said:

> is
> > > mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

every

Quoted message said:

> > > decision made--the Greeks found that out.
> >
> > I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other

form of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.
> >
> Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever

existed,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> almost any form of government can give freedoms.

That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
neither granted or taken away by Kings.

Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.

Sure, just as any freedom allowed by a democracy can be removed by
democracy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

I don't agree and no King "allowing" freedoms could ever give true
freedom.

Then the freedom does not exist. There in nothing in a democracy alone that
secures freedoms. It is in the checks and balances.

The process aint perfect, and much of what you said is true

Quoted message said:

regarding the stupid masses, but it's still the best system going on the
planet.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

No disagreement there.

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > > >
news:[email hidden]...
> > > > > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > > > "Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Not really democracy, but freedom (a minor point, but very
important
> > > > > > difference).
> > > > >
> > > > > How does one have freedom without democracy?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We do?
> > >
> > > We do what? It was a question.
> > >
> > > > We are a Reprehensive Republic. Within that, there are

democratic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > processes
> > > > (where most everyone can vote for their reprehensive). A true
democracy
> > is
> > > > mod rule, and nothing gets done if everyone must vote for each

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

every
> > > > decision made--the Greeks found that out.
> > >
> > > I didn'tsay we were a pure democracy, I asked a question. How does

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > have true freedom without (some form) of democracy? What other

form of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > government could supply the freedoms we have...such as they are.
> > >
> > Without having to actually furnish any examples that have ever

existed,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > almost any form of government can give freedoms.
>
> That's the point "give freedoms" Man does not give freedoms, they are

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> right given by the creator (God, Allah, Sheva, nature, etc) and are
> neither granted or taken away by Kings.
>

Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.

Sure, just as any freedom allowed by a democracy can be removed by
democracy.

Not if they actually follow their own Const. they can't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

I don't agree and no King "allowing" freedoms could ever give true
freedom.

Then the freedom does not exist. There in nothing in a democracy alone that
secures freedoms. It is in the checks and balances.

Kings have no checks and balances, thus the system we use and why we
rejected Kings.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
> Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.

Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.

Sure, just as any freedom allowed by a democracy can be removed by
democracy.

Not if they actually follow their own Const. they can't

BS. We are seeing it every day. They are voted away by the democratic
process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Democracy, bah! Not needed for freedom (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!).

I don't agree and no King "allowing" freedoms could ever give true
freedom.

Then the freedom does not exist. There in nothing in a democracy alone

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

secures freedoms. It is in the checks and balances.

Kings have no checks and balances, thus the system we use and why we
rejected Kings.

--

No true. Look at what happened in Britain. They put checks and balances on
the King (Magna Carta).
They had (have) a democratic house (commons) and an undemocratic house
(Lords).
Just because in the past most Kings have had un-checked power does not mean
it cannot be done. You asked for a theoretical example, that is one. I never
said that it actually existed, just that any form of government can allow
freedom, but without the proper checks and balances, that freedom is usually
short lived; whether there are democratic processes or not.
The point is, there is nothing inherent in democracy that secures freedom
(that is why the founding fathers took such steps to keep us from being
one--they knew that democracies were nothing more that tyrannical mod rule).
Our freedoms are being stripped because we have become very (too)
democratic, we do not enjoy our freedoms because of democracy. The mob is
easily moved to remove freedom with rhetoric and guile.
Imagine what our country would be right now, if we required voters to be
income tax payers (don't pay income tax, no vote--that is not just have
income tax collected, if after deductions you don't pay, you don't vote)! If
the Senate was selected by the states (whether governor or the governor with
consent of state congress--just removed from popular vote). Undemocratic?
Hell yes, but I think that we would see a lot less pandering to the [censored],
and more concern for the country.
NOTE: I am not saying this is what we should do, every solution has
problems. Just that removal of some of the incorrectly placed democratic
processes, could be a great improvement.

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> > Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.
>
> Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.

Sure, just as any freedom allowed by a democracy can be removed by
democracy.

Not if they actually follow their own Const. they can't

BS. We are seeing it every day. They are voted away by the democratic
process.

Granted, and the system will, in theory, balace itself out, or should i
say, our system has the best chance of balancing itself out. In a
democracy, some group is always unhappy!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kings have no checks and balances, thus the system we use and why we
rejected Kings.

--

No true. Look at what happened in Britain. They put checks and balances on
the King (Magna Carta).
They had (have) a democratic house (commons) and an undemocratic house
(Lords).

And, their King/queen has essentially no power at all and are not in the
decesion making seat anyway. They too moved away from Kings telling them
what they can and can't do.Ergo, they took their power away for a reason.

Quoted message said:

Just because in the past most Kings have had un-checked

All kings to one degree or another.

Quoted message said:

power does not mean
it cannot be done.

History says otherwise and it matters not. Living under a King means you
are a subject, not a free man no matter what freedoms you are "allowed"
or "granted."

Quoted message said:

You asked for a theoretical example,

I did?

Quoted message said:

that is one. I never
said that it actually existed, just that any form of government can allow
freedom,

There is that word "allow" again.

Quoted message said:

but without the proper checks and balances, that freedom is usually
short lived; whether there are democratic processes or not.

Of course, and a democracy in some form allows the greatest chances for
that checks and balances to take place.

Quoted message said:

The point is, there is nothing inherent in democracy that secures freedom

Secures, no, allows the greatest chance for it over any other process,
yes.

Quoted message said:

(that is why the founding fathers took such steps to keep us from being
one--they knew that democracies were nothing more that tyrannical mod rule).

They took even greater steps to make sure we were not ruled by kings.
Washington in fact was offered to be made King, and he refused knowing
what the result would be.

Quoted message said:

Our freedoms are being stripped because we have become very (too)
democratic, we do not enjoy our freedoms because of democracy. The mob is
easily moved to remove freedom with rhetoric and guile.

This is not a statement about democracy per se, but about human nature,
and is taken from an old playbook:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level
to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it
intends to direct itself." -Adolf [censored], Mein Kampf

Quoted message said:

Undemocratic?
Hell yes, but I think that we would see a lot less pandering to the [censored],
and more concern for the country.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." -H.L. Mencken, journalist and
satirist (1880 - 1956)

I would say that day has come....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr. Dickie said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dr. Dickie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> "WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > Well yes, of course. I should have said allow.
> >
> > Anything a King allows can be removed by said king.
>
> Sure, just as any freedom allowed by a democracy can be removed by
> democracy.

Not if they actually follow their own Const. they can't

BS. We are seeing it every day. They are voted away by the democratic
process.

Granted, and the system will, in theory, balace itself out, or should i
say, our system has the best chance of balancing itself out. In a
democracy, some group is always unhappy!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kings have no checks and balances, thus the system we use and why we
rejected Kings.

--

No true. Look at what happened in Britain. They put checks and balances

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the King (Magna Carta).
They had (have) a democratic house (commons) and an undemocratic house
(Lords).

And, their King/queen has essentially no power at all and are not in the
decesion making seat anyway. They too moved away from Kings telling them
what they can and can't do.Ergo, they took their power away for a reason.

Quoted message said:

Just because in the past most Kings have had un-checked

All kings to one degree or another.

Quoted message said:

power does not mean
it cannot be done.

History says otherwise and it matters not. Living under a King means you
are a subject, not a free man no matter what freedoms you are "allowed"
or "granted."

Quoted message said:

You asked for a theoretical example,

I did?

Quoted message said:

that is one. I never
said that it actually existed, just that any form of government can

allow

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

freedom,

There is that word "allow" again.

Quoted message said:

but without the proper checks and balances, that freedom is usually
short lived; whether there are democratic processes or not.

Of course, and a democracy in some form allows the greatest chances for
that checks and balances to take place.

Quoted message said:

The point is, there is nothing inherent in democracy that secures

freedom

Quoted message said:

Secures, no, allows the greatest chance for it over any other process,
yes.

Quoted message said:

(that is why the founding fathers took such steps to keep us from being
one--they knew that democracies were nothing more that tyrannical mod

rule).

Quoted message said:

They took even greater steps to make sure we were not ruled by kings.
Washington in fact was offered to be made King, and he refused knowing
what the result would be.

Quoted message said:

Our freedoms are being stripped because we have become very (too)
democratic, we do not enjoy our freedoms because of democracy. The mob

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easily moved to remove freedom with rhetoric and guile.

This is not a statement about democracy per se, but about human nature,
and is taken from an old playbook:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level
to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it
intends to direct itself." -Adolf [censored], Mein Kampf

Quoted message said:

Undemocratic?
Hell yes, but I think that we would see a lot less pandering to the

[censored],

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and more concern for the country.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." -H.L. Mencken, journalist and
satirist (1880 - 1956)

I would say that day has come....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Make no mistake Will, I am far, far, from advocating Regal rule, it was just
to show that freedom could be found under any system in theory. Heck even
socialism, in theory, allows great freedom (as long as reality is ignored).
Democracy is no different. A true democracy, will disallow freedom pretty
much as quick as any other (perhaps a bit slower). A limited form of
democracy, as a check, I would agree is essential to maintaining allowed
freedoms (a recourse is needed, and voting is about he best found so far).
BUT, and it is a big one, the more democratic the process, the more
informed, interested, involved, altruistic, and RESPONSIBLE the populace
must be.
Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are becoming more democratic, but
none of the latter. ;-(
Ah well, to busy to pontificate further.
Have a good weekend, I am off the range later today for some trigger time.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'😉, but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov