• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Illiberal liberalism

"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?  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.

>> 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

Antworten