• 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: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.

>  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 much better in that the people are governed by the "Rule
of
>>> Law".
>> A republic is just a form of government that allows for public policy to
>> be decided by and executed by representatives of a larger group of
>> society. The old Soviet Union was a republic as is the US. Most forms of
>> government rely upon rule of law. Even divine right monarchies and
>> dictatorships. Republics are no more guaranteed that their leadership will
>> conduct themselves by rule of law than any other form of government. Just
>> look at our own republic. Bush has violated the constitution and federal
>> law repeatedly. No different than any petty despot.
>
> Under the best of terms a Republic does not last much more than 200 years
> before they have become rotten to the core and collapse due to corruption.
> Govenrments tend to go in cycles.  From serve the servant of the people than
> a master/servant of the people.
>>>>>>>>>  The problem as I see it is that the Republicans
are much less
>>>>>>>>> socialistic/communistic than the Democrats.
>>>>>>>> What does this (erroneous) judgment have to do with
racism?
>>>>>>> Do you even know what racism is?
>>>>>> Well let's see. I'm old and a Texan by birth and raising. Yes,
I know
>>>>>> what racism is.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And what is racism?  Not that I don't believe you, but only about 1
>>>>> person
>>>>> in 20 actually knows what racism is when they use the word.  It is
one
>>>>> of
>>>>> the more misused we have today.
>>>> What do you think it is? Have you lived it? When where?
>>> Very few people have suffered from Racism,
>> Of course you are wrong.
>>
>>
>>> many more have suffered from
>>> prejudice.  Do you know the difference between the two?
>> Let's have you tells us.
>>
> Racism is where somebody believes one race of people inherently superior to
> another.  Prejudice is labled racism, and so it can not be effectively dealt
> with
> because the word has lost it's meaning.  For every racist there are a
> hundred
> people who are prejudice.  I means to prejudge based on factor like race,
> but
> it does not mean they believe themselves superior.  They just don't like
> them or
> want to be around them.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *******************
>>>>>>>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>>>>>>>      Mesa, AZ
>>>>>>>> *******************
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *******************
>>>>>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>>>>>      Mesa, AZ
>>>>>> *******************
>>>>> Robert Miller
>>>> --
>>>> *******************
>>>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>>>      Mesa, AZ
>>>> *******************
>>> Robert Miller
>> --
>> *******************
>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>      Mesa, AZ
>> *******************
> Robert Miller
>
>

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

Antworten