> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:12:13 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>

>> The Trucker wrote:

>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:22:56 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Jul 26, 3:57 pm, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:25:42 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

>>>>>> As Ayn Rand would say, it is an anti-concept designed to achieve
>>>>>> its exact opposite, namely the sacrifice of the few to the many.

>>>>> I seem to be unable to find here signature on any of the
>>>>> documents that implicitly define the nation and the proposed
>>>>> legitimate ends of its government. Nor do I believe that she was
>>>>> anywhere to be found among those who ratified the government.

>>>> Nor do I believe she would have endorsed slavery or the denial of
>>>> women's rights - and most importantly the vagueness of some of the
>>>> limits placed on gov't power.
>>>>
>>>> So, as usual, your point is entirely beside the point.

>>>
>>> No, Fred, it is your created point that is horseshit. The vast
>>> majority will inevitably define righteousness,

>>
>> Holy cow. Argumentum ad popularum. You can't be serious....

>
> I am absolutely serious.
>

>>> for there is no other means by which
>>> the righteousness can be manifested.

>>
>> "Righteousness" in Western Civilization is a religious
>> concept, and religious texts are full of un-righteous but
>> highly popular behavior. First the unrighteousness, then the
>> smiting and the hurting and the glaivin....

>
> Irrelevant. The people are moved by the religious texts and the
> interpretation of that stuff by the fascists. The majority then
> define the morality and the laws. The vast majority will ever define
> righteousness. Water is wet.
>

>>> Fascist pigs will forever find their
>>> way to the symbolic or real guillotine.
>>>

>>
>> Always with the Big Blade, man...

>
> You can't fool the majority forever.