If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. -- Peter |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On 12/7/2010 8:37 AM, Rich wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Pete wrote: The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. He's mistaken idiot. The minorities have BECOME the tyrannizers. What does that statement have to do with photography. If you know how to read and think, look at this group's charter. -- Peter |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
Peter is far from an idiot, that is uncalled for. If you met him you'd
know. He and I have different opinions of certain subjects but it doesn't make either one of us an idiot. "Rich" wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote: The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. He's mistaken idiot. The minorities have BECOME the tyrannizers. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
"peter" wrote in message
... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message ... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example. -- Peter |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
"peter" wrote in message
... On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example. How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been anything like this? |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message ... On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example. How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been anything like this? They have the potential to do so. -- Peter |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:24:45 -0500, peter
wrote: On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example. How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been anything like this? They have the potential to do so. Prop 8 was all about a perceived danger. People were afraid that two gay people would gain equal footing with heterosexuals. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
On 2010-12-10 18:34:56 -0800, tony cooper said:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:24:45 -0500, peter wrote: On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message ... On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: wrote in message snip Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition driven, so the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters. I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against our will, propositions might be our only recourse. The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority That has nothing to do with my comment. It is a reasonably predictable consequence. No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition leads to tyranny of the majority? In a small way. If it weren't for rules preventing it: We would still have slavery; Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in; shall I go on? This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed. Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power. Sadly, not every person is a person of good will. Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that resulted in this tyranny? A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example. How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been anything like this? They have the potential to do so. Prop 8 was all about a perceived danger. People were afraid that two gay people would gain equal footing with heterosexuals. ....and Prop 20 & 27 were all about redistricting and "Gerrymandering". Prop 19 was for the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. Prop 22 prohibits the State from appropriating, or borrowing State fuel taxes, or taking funds used for transport redevelopment (highway infrastructure repairs & construction) or local government projects. Prop 23. Entirely sponsored by Texas energy corporations, with Valero and Tesoro oil companies taking the lead against, of all things Schwarzenegger's AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law. Californians took offense at Texas corporations butting into our politics. Californians were sick and tired of the bickering and failure to come to a consensus of the State budget with the two thirds majority. So Prop 25 passed, now a simple majority will allow for the passage of the State budget. However, when it comes to State & Local tax & fee increases Prop 26 passed requiring two-thirds majority in the Legislature for State tax & fee increases, and a two-thirds voter approval for local tax & fee increases. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
peter wrote:
On 12/4/2010 8:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: wrote: The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority Just give the minority proportionally greater voting powers. :-) Yup! That worked really well/ I don't need to say where and when, or do I. Imperial Germany, in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia...lass_franchise Though they were not alone, Rumania had a similar system up to WWI, for example ... -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The de-liberalization of photography | tony cooper | Digital Photography | 19 | December 2nd 10 09:47 PM |