Re: Illiberal liberalism


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.


>
>>
>>> 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.

No doubt there is one or two.


>
>
>>
>>>>>  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.

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.


>>> 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.


>  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.


>>> 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.

> it
> is the sworn duty of our government under the Constitution to protect those
> rights.

That we gave ourselves by listing them in the Constitution.


>
>>> 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.


>  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.

>
> If you redefine the language you change it's meaning.  I can show you
> striking examples.
> If you are interested.

I'm not.


>> --
>> *******************
>>  Michael R. McAfee
>>      Mesa, AZ
>> *******************
>
> Robert Miller
>
>

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

Robert Miller (10.10.2007 01:06)
mrmcafee (10.10.2007 18:05)