• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Illiberal liberalism

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.


> 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!


>
>>>  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.

> 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.

>
> In a Republic individuals have rights,

Not always.


> 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.


--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************

Antworten