Re: Illiberal liberalism

"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 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.


>
>
>>
>>>>  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.
>
>> 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?  Our form of government is a Democratic form of
government
within a Republican Nation.
>
>>
>> In a Republic individuals have rights,
>
> Not always.
>
These rights were not granted by the government, they were born with their
Rights, it
is the sworn duty of our government under the Constitution to protect those
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?  And if the government redefines
unreasonable at the acceptence of the majority, what do you have to say
about it?

If you redefine the language you change it's meaning.  I can show you
striking examples.
If you are interested.
>
> --
> *******************
>  Michael R. McAfee
>      Mesa, AZ
> *******************

Robert Miller
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

mrmcafee (08.10.2007 20:42)
Robert Miller (10.10.2007 01:06)
mrmcafee (10.10.2007 18:05)