G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <MPG.1ce543554eb48e9d98a2de@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1ce53d4774f7df779896b5@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the only true patriots are those who feel
> > > a burning need to trash the symbols of the nation? Can't someone love
> > > the actual rights and freedoms *and* be proud of symbols and traditions?
> > >
> > > Isn't the best kind of patriot the guy who does both?
> >
> > The Conservatives don't do both. They're against rights.
>
> They are? Which ones?
>
> > They think it
> > should be majority rules for everything. This is exactly what a right
> > isn't. It says no matter what the majority thinks, you have some right.
> > That's why they hate judges. Judges interpret rights.
>
> Conservatives are, quite understandably, suspicious of judicial activism
> [1] because judicial activism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and can
> be indistinguishable from tyranny[2]. It's one thing to "interpret
> rights," and quite another to legislate from the bench, and the latter
> is increasingly prevalent - particularly in cases where the issue in
> question hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law by the
> legislative process or referendum.
>
> [This is why the left is willing to see the Democratic party go up in
> flames over its obstructionist tactics on judicial appointments; having
> lost every single other avenue of power - the presidency, the congress,
> the senate, and most of the statehouses - the one area they imagine they
> can retain their increasingly tenuous hold is the judiciary.]
>
> > I certainly
> > think the actual rights are more important than the symbols. The
> > Conservatives don't seem to agree.
>
> Well, they certainly don't agree with your crude strawman-effigy of
> their argument.
>
> [1] You know, when judges stop interpreting laws and start making up
> new ones.
>
> [2] You know, when someone never elected and absolutely untouchable
> through any political process (short of Rule .303) starts issuing fiats.
I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
think up any of these points on your own?
Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
--
Epi
------------
She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
....and god I swear I love no other.
Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
In article <MPG.1ce543554eb48e9d98a2de@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1ce53d4774f7df779896b5@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the only true patriots are those who feel
> > > a burning need to trash the symbols of the nation? Can't someone love
> > > the actual rights and freedoms *and* be proud of symbols and traditions?
> > >
> > > Isn't the best kind of patriot the guy who does both?
> >
> > The Conservatives don't do both. They're against rights.
>
> They are? Which ones?
>
> > They think it
> > should be majority rules for everything. This is exactly what a right
> > isn't. It says no matter what the majority thinks, you have some right.
> > That's why they hate judges. Judges interpret rights.
>
> Conservatives are, quite understandably, suspicious of judicial activism
> [1] because judicial activism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and can
> be indistinguishable from tyranny[2]. It's one thing to "interpret
> rights," and quite another to legislate from the bench, and the latter
> is increasingly prevalent - particularly in cases where the issue in
> question hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law by the
> legislative process or referendum.
>
> [This is why the left is willing to see the Democratic party go up in
> flames over its obstructionist tactics on judicial appointments; having
> lost every single other avenue of power - the presidency, the congress,
> the senate, and most of the statehouses - the one area they imagine they
> can retain their increasingly tenuous hold is the judiciary.]
>
> > I certainly
> > think the actual rights are more important than the symbols. The
> > Conservatives don't seem to agree.
>
> Well, they certainly don't agree with your crude strawman-effigy of
> their argument.
>
> [1] You know, when judges stop interpreting laws and start making up
> new ones.
>
> [2] You know, when someone never elected and absolutely untouchable
> through any political process (short of Rule .303) starts issuing fiats.
I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
think up any of these points on your own?
Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
--
Epi
------------
She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
....and god I swear I love no other.
Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com