Re: Illiberal liberalism

"mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aTuOi.9001$Ut2.7401@newsfe17.phx...
>
>
> Robert Miller wrote:
>> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in
message
>> news:99gOi.4710$Pn2.4267@newsfe16.phx...
>>>
>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote
in message
>>>> news:jZYLi.142358$Mu5.78936@newsfe15.phx...
>>>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>>>> "mrmcafee"
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:I_%Ki.87534$xZ2.12497@newsfe10.phx...
>>>>>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>> "mrmcafee"
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:EYTKi.117673$Vk6.52586@newsfe07.phx...
>>>>>>>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "mrmcafee"
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:inZJi.109639$Vk6.36804@newsfe07.phx...
>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "mrmcafee"
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
news:3%XJi.80897$xZ2.5857@newsfe10.phx...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rev. Bob 'Bob'
Crispen" <revbob@the.rectory> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
news:Xns99AD9E823E638revbob@140.99.99.130...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The kindly Rev. overheard
metaluna <no@email.no> saying on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue 04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sep 2007 05:09:19p:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MLK will never be spokesman for morality. He was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sex pig.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What does sex have to do with morality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best
explained by writing Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jackson, Sen. Craig....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet more
validation that, to a Real Right-Winger, Sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conquers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, so
long as you can come up with *some* excuse to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep that
hate burning (and never, never look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason you
hate those people (with the exception of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tacked on
at the very end)), you're good to go in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ditto Room.
>>> The hypocrisy evident in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack is
classic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't had
much exposure to Smith29, have you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to this
purported Reverend's erratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Bubba, the question
here isn't about supposeldoly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "eratic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, it's about your
suppport for for Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party's program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of racism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How much support did the Civil
Rights Act get from Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Republicans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite a bit, if we are discussing
the 1964 Bill which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main one. http://tinyurl.com/2x6fcr
. You should notice that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only Southern Democratic
Senator to support the bill was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrat, and the only Southern
Republican Senator opposed it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cherry picking your facts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote totals
>>>>>>>>>>>> Totals are in "Yes-No"
format:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The original House version: 290-130  
(69%-31%)
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Senate version: 73-27   (73%-27%)
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Senate version, as voted on by the
House: 289-126
>>>>>>>>>>>> (70%-30%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By party
>>>>>>>>>>>> The original House version:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party: 153-96   (61%-39%)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Senate version:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party: 46-22   (68%-32%)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Senate version, voted on by the
House:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As you can see the Civil Rights Act had
greater support by
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans
>>>>>>>>>>>> than by Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>>> What I see is more Democrats voting for the
bill that
>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a mute point, by any count.
Yesterday's Southern Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>> are todays Southern Republicans. This,
there can be no refute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are very few real Republicans or
Democrats in office today,
>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>> you understood the difference between a
Republic or Democracy
>>>>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>>>>> understand that already.
>>>>>>>>> I understand precisely what a democracy and a
republic are, but
>>>>>>>>> what we are discussing are Democrats and
Republicans (members of
>>>>>>>>> political parties).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you understand that a Democracy is among the worst
of all
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> governments.
>>>>>>> I don't understand that at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Majority rule can not protect the rights of the
minority, because
>>>>>>>> the people are governed by the rule of the majority.
>>>>>>> Only if that is what the majority wishes. In our case,
since the US
>>>>>>> is a democracy (a nation in which the majority of the adult
>>>>>>> population holds ultimate power) the majority has decided
to protect
>>>>>>> civil rights and order our society through a constitution
and rule
>>>>>>> of law. That constitution can be alter, even to the point
of its
>>>>>>> elimination, through amendment by the people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why doesn't the Congress enforce the immigration laws?
>>>>> The Executive Branch enforces our laws. I thought that you were
>>>>> supposed to know something about government.
>>>> True, and they are to cowardly to compel the Executive branch to do
>>>> it's duty.
>>> Congress has no power to compel the Executive Branch to do anything.
>>
>> If Congress passes a law that says there will be no more funding for the
>> Iraq war
>> what does the Executive Branch do?  Ignore it?
>
> They can and have. That was one of the main problems with Iran-Contra
> scandal. RayGun ignored the will of Congress by funding the Contra rebels
> through arms sales to an adversary.
>
So the system works, even though it's not perfect.  Thank you for making
my point.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> They would rather patronize groups of people on behalf of the law
>>>> breakers,
>>>> and pass new laws that also will not likely be enforced.
>>> Pass laws is all that Congress CAN do. Robert, I'm afraid that you
>>> really don't understand the nature of our government. Study up!
>>
>> It would seem many politicians have the same problem you describe.
>
> No doubt there is one or two.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>  In 1927 the
>>>>>> U.S. Army trainning manual defined the various forms of
government.
>>>>>> It did
>>>>>> not have kind words for a Democracy a couple of years later it
was
>>>>>> re-written
>>>>>> so that it had glowing words to say about a Democracy and
>>>>>> marginallized the
>>>>>> Republican form of government.  Now 80 years of government
funded
>>>>>> education
>>>>>> is it any wonder that people don't know what form government
the U.S.
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> founded to be, and those that know, few really know what a
Republic
>>>>>> really is.
>>>>> Apparently you are among them.
>>>>>
>>>> A Republic is governed by the rule of law
>>> Not necessarily. And a democracy certainly must be governed by rule of
>>> law or else chaos ensues.
>>
>> Including Immigration laws? For example.
>
> All laws. Even the ones against murder. That doesn't mean that murders
> don't still occur now does it? Just because federal efforts to prevent
> unauthorized entry into the country are inadequate to prevent 100% of the
> attempts doesn't mean that the Feds aren't attempting to enforce the law.
>
Inadequate? You mean largely ignored.  How else would 12 to 20 million
people enter the country and work illegally?  Even get drivers licenses,
schooling,
and welfare benifits!

>
>>>> and soverenty is retained by the
>>>> individuals of the body politic who appoint representitives to
>>>> represent them in
>>>> the Congress.
>>> Sounds like democracy to me, assuming that the "body politic"
consist of
>>> the adults within the society being governed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  The Congress, and the State Legislatures are the Democracies.
>>> No way. They are the republic part of the deal. They are there to do the
>>> people's business. They are not sovereign.
>>
>> A Democracy is rule by the majority, does that not describe the Congress
>> and
>> State Legislatures?
>
> The legislators are not the electors. For example, they can not cast a
> secret vote since their votes are not their own personal votes but those
> as a representative of the electorate that they represent. The democracy
> exist with the people, not the representatives.
>
They are still majority rule.  Just because you don't like something, you
can't
redefine it into something else.

>
>>  Our form of government is a Democratic form of government
>> within a Republican Nation.
>
> I think that it is better described if we say that the US follows the
> democratic philosophy of government and employs the republican model to
> effect it. Democracy is a philosophic concept which demands that the
> majority of the governed be the final holders of political power in the
> society. How that majority applies that power can vary. We employ the
> republican model, which is a form of government (nuts and bolts) as
> opposed to a philosophy of government. Republics need not be democratic in
> nature. NAZI Germany was a republic. Stalinist Soviet Union was a
> republic. Any country can be a republic regardless of their governmental
> philosophy.

They called themselves a Republic, but by the nature of their governments
they
were not Republics.  Calling themselves a Monarchy would not have made
themselves a monarchy.
>
>
>>>> In a Republic individuals have rights,
>>> Not always.
>>>
>> These rights were not granted by the government, they were born with
>> their Rights,
>
> No we weren't.

If I point a loaded gun at you do you have the right to kill me in self
defence?
Where did  you get that right? if you believe you have it in the first
place.
Do you have the right to protect your property?

The very basic nature of government is to protect your property rights.
>
>> it
>> is the sworn duty of our government under the Constitution to protect
>> those rights.
>
> That we gave ourselves by listing them in the Constitution.
>
Did we create them from nothing?  Or did we form a better government to
protect
that which we already had?

>
>>
>>>> in a Democracy soverinty is retained by the
>>>> majority and people have group rights, not individual rights.
>>> You are completely wrong. We live in a democracy. we have individual
>>> rights, within reason. I can vote for any candidate I wist to vote for
>>> to represent me in government. I am secure from unreasonable search and
>>> seizure by the government. Those are individual rights.
>>>
>> Who defines "unreasonable" the government?
>
> Yep. More specifically the US Supreme Court.
>
So if we have a totalitarian government that says one class of people does
not
belong and appoint Judges to the Supreme Court to rubber stamp that idea.
Will you accept that?  Is the Supreme Court going to be your ultimate judge
of
right and wrong?

Abraham Lincoln, following the Dred Scott decision
that declared Congress could not prohibit slavery,
said in his first inaugural address, "I do not
forget the position assumed by some that
constitutional questions are to be decided by the
Supreme Court," Lincoln said. "[I]f the policy of
the government upon vital questions affecting the
whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people
will have ceased to be their own
rulers, having . . . resigned their government
into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

>
>>  And if the government redefines
>> unreasonable at the acceptence of the majority, what do you have to say
>> about it?
>
> They don't. The Supreme Court uses legal precedent and their own
> understanding of what is reasonable and what isn't.
>
Judges are human and therefor imperfect  Roe v Wade went one way, if it
goes the other and someday back again.  Which position is correct?  Perhaps
there is no right or wrong.  Just what the government and it's counsels say
you
may or may not do.

>>
>> If you redefine the language you change it's meaning.  I can show you
>> striking examples.
>> If you are interested.
>
> I'm not.
>

That's obvious.
>
>>> --
>>> *******************
>>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>>      Mesa, AZ
>>> *******************
>>
>> Robert Miller
>
> --
> *******************
>  Michael R. McAfee
>      Mesa, AZ
> *******************

Robert Miller
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

mrmcafee (10.10.2007 18:05)