Re: Illiberal liberalism


Robert Miller wrote:
> "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.

Well yes, the system does work, kinda. Loads of important folks went to
prison and had their lives drastically altered as a result of not
following the law. Even RayGun, a very popular President, had his
reputation tarnished to the extent that most people remember Iran/Contra
over all of his (questionable) accomplishments. The Contras failed, and
Iran remains an adversary. I would say that it was a general failure.

>  Thank you for making
> my point.

I thought that your point was that "republics" were characterized by
"rule of law". What we just discussed was the proof that they aren't.

You're welcome.

<snip>


>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

I mean inadequate. Just take a look at I.C.E.'s budget, number of
agents, and apprehensions.


>  How else would 12 to 20 million
> people enter the country and work illegally?

That number seems to get bigger every time one of your racists posts.

They come for jobs. It is a big border. You don't want to pay any more
taxes.

>  Even get drivers licenses,

Not real ones.


> schooling,
> and welfare benifits!

Not many. In order to qualify for welfare benefits, adults must be citizens.


>
>>>>> 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.

Not effectively in the US Senate. And not effectively if the leadership
is opposed. Committee chairmen and the legislative officers have
tremendous power over what passes and what doesn't.

Not that it matters to this part of the discussion. Legislators are our
REPRESENTATIVES. They vote in our stead. Yes it is majority rules, JUST
LIKE IT IS MAJORITY RULES WHEN THE PEOPLE VOTE FOR THEM. Philosophy is
democratic, the process is republican.


>  Just because you don't like something, you
> can't
> redefine it into something else.

You sure seem to be trying.


>
>>>  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.

How so? I seem to recall that NAZI Germany held elections, had members
of the Reichstag. The same for Stalin's USSR. Large electorates electing
representatives to represent them to a governing body. That is what a
republic is.

>  Calling themselves a Monarchy would not have made
> themselves a monarchy.

Especially if they didn't have a king.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy, and a republic. I bet that confuses
you. Just because they don't call themselves a republic doesn't make it so.

>>
>>>>> 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?

Depends.


> Where did  you get that right? if you believe you have it in the first
> place.

It is inherently to the nature of man.

> Do you have the right to protect your property?

Not always.

>
> The very basic nature of government is to protect your property rights.

I see you got one right. The "Social Contract Theory" of government
calls for surrendering some of your individual, natural rights in favor
of government and social order. That means that you really can't shoot
the guy who is stealing your truck out of your driveway if he is not
presenting any kind of danger to your life or the lives of others. It is
government's job to prevent him from stealing, or to capture him if he does.



>> That we gave ourselves by listing them in the Constitution.
>>
> Did we create them from nothing?

No. They were the result of the "Age of Enlightenment" and our
understanding of English rights.


>  Or did we form a better government to
> protect
> that which we already had?


We expanded upon an existing idea.

One thing is for sure. God didn't write the Constitution, nor the Bill
of Rights. Our Founders wrote the Constitution, and the people pressured
our subsequent representatives to install the Bill of Rights.

>
>>>>> 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?

We don't have a totalitarian government. We have a constitutional,
democratic, republic. I accept that.


>  Is the Supreme Court going to be your ultimate judge
> of
> right and wrong?

No. Just the Constitution. I am my ultimate judge of right and wrong.


>
> Abraham Lincoln, following the Dred Scott decision
> that declared Congress could not prohibit slavery,

That's not what the Dred Scott case was about. Who taught you your history?


> 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."

Lincoln was wrong.

In the same speech, Lincoln said:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have
no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Such a statement leads one to believe that Lincoln thought that slavery
was tolerable.

Historical statements must be judged by their own times.



>
>>>  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?

The one that supports personal freedom.


>  Perhaps
> there is no right or wrong.  Just what the government and it's counsels say
> you
> may or may not do.

Two different things.


>
>>> 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
>
>

--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]