Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)

2000-06-06 Thread M A Jones

Thanks for the clarification, Mine, I'll bear it in mind.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:54 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19914] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)



 Mark,

 I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
 equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..

 Mine


 discrete and insular minorities  protected by the "C" were/are who
 exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers?

 Mark Jones
 http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly
to
  discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely
 because
  of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od
 the
  C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some
 people
  might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is
 precisely
  its glory, in providing a defense against
  majoritarianian oppression. --jks
 
  Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the
  masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10.
 
  Doug
 
 






Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)

2000-06-05 Thread md7148


Mark,

I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..

Mine


discrete and insular minorities  protected by the "C" were/are who
exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers?

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to
 discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely
because
 of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od
the
 C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some
people
 might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is
precisely
 its glory, in providing a defense against
 majoritarianian oppression. --jks

 Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the
 masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10.

 Doug






Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)

2000-06-05 Thread JKSCHW

In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Mark,
 
 I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
 equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..
 
 Mine
  

Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep yourself in Marx as a rhetorician. 
Irony was his gavorite mode, after sarcasm.--jks




Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)

2000-06-05 Thread md7148


In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 

 Mark,
 
 I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same
 equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor..
 
 Mine
  

Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep yourself in Marx as a
rhetorician. 
Irony was his gavorite mode, after sarcasm.--jks

OKEY! I got to know Mark's sarcasm later, sorry. Since so many posts were
going back and forth, I was confused about who was saying what. My brain
can not take everything all at once, if there is too much traffic.

Mine