• 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: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.
They would rather patronize groups of people on behalf of the law breakers,
and pass new laws that also will not likely be enforced.

>
>>  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 and soverenty is retained by the
individuals of the body politic who appoint representitives to represent
them in
the Congress.  The Congress, and the State Legislatures are the Democracies.

In a Republic individuals have rights, in a Democracy soverinty is retained
by the
majority and people have group rights, not individual rights.

>
>>
>>>> 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
> *******************

Robert Miller

Antworten