au1929 wrote:fribbley
This may have been your first post on this forum. Hopefully, before your next one you will have managed to pull your head out of your a$$hole.
The republicans and Bush are attempting to control the judiciary inorder that there be no legal obstacle to the passage of their agenda. That mirrors the action of the Nazi party in Germany does it not.
fribbley wrote:Elections have consequences. The Left doesn't have the will of the people as expressed at the polls on their side any longer.
Well, first, you should learn to understand the difference between polls and elections. George Bush won an election in 2004 with 52% of the vote. Now he has less than 50% approval ratings. Shall we impeach him now? Or consider his administration illegitimate?
The "people" spoke in 2000, and Bush got less votes than Gore. Are you going to tell me that the Electoral College is the "will of the people?" Or is it clearly understood that "historically" the EC was designed as a breach work set up by the Founding Fathers to prevent democratic and popular opinion from having too much power in our Republic?
You do understand the differences between a democracy and a republic, do you not?
fribbley wrote:You're almost admitting that the courts are controlled by illiberal/Leftists, and that they are the last stronghold of tryanny of the appointed over the elected
No one "almost admitted" anything. You must need glasses.
If you would be so kind to check your history. Over the last 25 years, a Democrat has held the White House for one-third of that time, and over that period most federal judicial appointments have been made by Republican presidents.
Seven of nine Supreme Court justices were nominate by a Republican presidnt. Just look it up.
According to your logic, you are attacking Republican administrations for packing the court system with liberals.
Are you aware of that?
fribbley wrote:Since the courts are the default arbiters of policy, let the Left suffer the reverses of over a century of juridically imposed collectivism
.
No, you are quite wrong. The Judiciary is not an arbiter of policy. It is an arbiter of whether or not laws passed also pass constitutional muster. The only way policy is an issue is if it is constitutional. There is a profound difference, even if you want, for ideological purposes, to smear the two ideas together.
Judicial imposed "collectivism" means what? Please enlighten us to specific cases in the federal courts of such. I want specifics, so please present them and illustrate how they are collective.
fribbley wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the Left still supports collectivism, does it not?
You are mistaken, about this and much more. What is your working definition of collectivism? Is it akin to Stalin's removal of the Kulaks from central and southern Russia or is it the institution of the military draft by Lincoln (another Republican) or perhaps you mean the 16th amendment, passed under another Republican administration (Taft's), the Social Security act of 1937, the Highway Act of 1956, Civil Rights Act of 1965. Just what are you going to reference as "collectivist acts of government?"
Do you even understand the purpose of government?
Here's a clue for you, since you do not seem to understand the purpose of "collective" action, viz., popular forms of government as expressed by forms of governments called democracies and constitutional republics. Tattoo this to you inner eyelids so you remember it.
"CLASSICAL POLITICAL THOUGHT SAYS THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO DO JUSTICE FOR ITS CITIZENS. PART OF THIS OBLIGATION IS TO FOSTER CONDITIONS IN WHICH WEALTH IS PRODUCED. THE OBLIGATION IS NOT MET BY SUBSTITUTING THE WEALTH-PRODUCER FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Your hero, however does not seem to understand that, by example stating that "Government doesn't create wealth," Mr. Bush said. "The role of government is to create the kind of conditions where risk-takers and entrepreneurs can invest and grow and hire new workers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/politics/campaigns/09CND-BUSH.html?hp
All fine and good as far as it goes, and while the normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business all the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity. However, business acts on the prevailing business philosophy, which claims that corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest.
This comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.
He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy.
fribbley wrote:The fear on the Left is palpable, and while my initial post was perhaps incendiary, it's gratifying to see such invective and vituperation directed my way.
I assume you enjoy farting in a crowded elevator for the gratification of responses as well.
fribbley wrote:It was there before I ever posted in the first place, but I just had to point out that those who sling around the N(azi) appellation as ascribed to American Christians-conservatives (which I myself am not) are woefully ill-informed, ignorant of history (past, recent, and present), and dripping with hypocrisy.
It appears that it is you who are woefully uninformed from spending your waking hours masturbating at Freeperland or Luciane's web site.
But I note that you failed to reply to anything I stated that was historically based, "past, recent and present " that delineates the connections in process and rhetoric that makes German fascism akin to right wing American reactionary conservatism.
Why is that?
Surely a self-assured Brainiac such as yourself, so full of historical understanding of political theory and fact can mount a defense to your positions.
fribbley wrote:It amuses me to no end to see the moonbat-Left so hyperventilate over peoples' religious beliefs; I thought the Left was tolerant in all things...how judgmental and hateful and intolerant is the Left.
You can not have it both ways, in one case criticizing the Left its support of judicial decisions that promote tolerance for, example say homosexual, religious, and minority rights while at the same time criticizing it for intolerance.
You can't play that way.
.
fribbley wrote:politics is a science like economics i.e. not measureable,
Actually economics is a measurable science. Perhaps you just mis-typed.
fribbley wrote:but it's my opinion that the American Left is falling for a trap of trying to equate observance of Christianity and Judaism with the Lefts' faith in governmental/collective power over the beliefs of the individual citizen.
Nope and you ought to provide verification based upon real events before you make such claims. You should note that no one on the Left is critical of anyone's religious beliefs, nor opposes anyone from practicing their religion. What you do find is a concern that people are attempting to codify such religious beliefs in secular society by government through laws.
fribbley wrote:The electorate didn't reject Leftist candidates such as Hanoi John
.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for attacking a wounded in action Viet Nam veteran who enlisted, while your heroes George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay hid out. Kerry asked for combat duty, killed communists, and won medals for bravery. Bush got drunk, impregnated a woman and paid for her abortion (when it was not yet legal). Equating Kerry with Jane Fonda does not conform to objective reality. And such slurs are disgraceful both for their historical inaccuracies and for their slanderous intent.
Have you no shame at all?
And I have dog in this fight because my uncle was killed in Viet Nam while that worthless puke you admire was off snorting cocaine and smoking pot.
fribbley wrote:
..because they are overly religious, they rejected the Democrat candidates because they are at best ambivalent about American security in the terrorist era. But it heartens me to see that Democrats first went with "Bush Cheated!" to "Christians are Nazis!" Good Luck, NOT, with that.
Hard to imagine you calling a man who enlists in the Navy and a wounded combat veteran one who does not care for the defense of the nation while you support a man who went AWOL.
You got any medals for bravery or are you simply another fat-ass member of the 101st fighting keyboard battalion typing from his mama's basement?
As to terrorism, the worst terrorist attack this nation has seen was on George Bush's watch and it is abundantly clear from a review of the facts that he refused to take seriously the intelligence community's concerns about al Quida before the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
I guess you think that had you been president and your national security advisor gave you a report entitled "bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" you would have stayed on vacation too.
The next worst attack? A right wing, fundamentalist Christian, Tim McVeigh. So much for concerns about that group.
fribbley wrote:Thanks for all the slurs and swearwords directed my way though, it rather re-enforces my opinion! I wouldn't be quite so certain that I'd achieved victory in this particular debate had I not seen all of the swearwords directed my way, but there is no doubt in my mind, I won this one.
It is typical with freepers, yet hard to understand how you think you won anything here other than the reprobation of thinking people on this site from either the Right or Left with your distortions of history, lies, and slanders.
fribbley wrote:"Liberals"/Leftists/Democrats are intolerant, collectivist, dripping with hate and condescension, and they've made the brutal mechanisms of government their god...as they've so often done before, with millions upon millions of souls on their "conscience"...
Personally, I can tolerate a lot. What I will not tolerate is remarks in debates that are downright dishonest, and yours are that.
Who the hell is making government a god? You are not about to get away with that kind of nonsense, and you had better back up those remarks with facts and not simply uninformed "opinions."
Those millions and millions of people who were killed by fascism and communism were killed by ideologues from both ends of the political spectrum who dismissed the facts and instead marched forward thinking they had absolute certainty.
That is exactly the sprit of your post.
And fascism and communism were defeated by Western liberals and conservatives alike. I lost family members in WWII fighting fascism and have family that was wounded or died fighting communism, so piss off with your remarks.
As I stated earlier when you popped up on-site with your mindless drivel;
WHEN THE RIGHT ACCUSES LIBERALS OF "FASCISM," IT ALMOST ALWAYS DOES SO IN AN EFFORT TO OBSCURE ITS OWN FASCIST PROCLIVITIES -- AND IT REMINDS THE REST OF US JUST WHOSE FOOTSOLDIERS ARE IN REALITY MERRILY GOOSESTEPPING DOWN THE NATIONAL GARDEN PATH.
Finally Mr Freeper, I note that you cowardly failed to take up the challenge I offered, and instead continued with your hit and run ignorant rant about Leftists.
Why is it that freeper folks like you are incapable of intelligent discussion yet parade about thumping their chests and boast how you bested others without even offering a modicum of evidence.
Sport, you couldn't even beat up your fu@king shadow.
Again, this is the challenge to you:
"Start a thread called "communism, socialism, liberalism, and fascism; what are they" and have you define them for the rest of us.
And if you don't. I will call you a cowardly pussy each and every time I counter post you.
)
