On Sun, 09 May 2004 17:47:14 -0600, lagringaloca2@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 02:29:48 -0700, Scipio
>wrote:
>
>>>>Democracy
>>>> A "fuzzy" term at best.
>>
>>Loca, you are simply another net-imbecile who attempts rhetorical
>>justification of self-serving baloney. This is so common that it's
>
>I am an imbecile? How do I arouse you to speak to me? Past all the
>rebuttal of your self-serving baloney, you will find the answer you
>requested.
>
>>more than common - it sets the person apart like a grain of sand on
>>the beach, a yet-another with nothing to offer, who really ought to be
>>tending bar or digging a ditch. It does this immediately, and even
>>those who are no great geniuses nor debaters tend to recognize the
>>futility and reappraise. They don't necessarily change their minds,
>>but they do tend to pipe down, discover the barest hint of humility.
>>This capacity actually speaks well of them, if not of their opinions.
>
>Yes. I understand that you would like it very much if I did not
>contradict you or better yet, if I would shut up and go away. How
>embarrassing for you that I continue to rebut your views. How
>humiliating that I think you're wrong and simply refuse to cave in to
>your demands. It must be terribly frustrating that I won't be cowed
>or bullied into submission or agreement. It must be infuriating that
>I reply to your posts with facts that you cannot address except by way
>of "putting me down" with verbal abuse. I understand, Scipio. I
>really do. It takes brain-power and energy to debate and you tire
>very easily.
Maybe he should use your approach of simply kill-filing anyone who
amkes him tired.
>
>>There is something wrong with you, and I suspect it is physiological.
>
>There is no way for me to refute your suspicions short of meeting you
>in public and sitting down for a talk with you. I can only say that
>your suspicions are unfounded and that YOU are not qualified to make
>this diagnosis.
>
>>I don't know what your story is, don't care to go there with you
>>anyway, as there is nothing I can do about it. You CLEARLY have a
>>behavioral problem, or something expressed behavioraly, a somewhat
>>serious something. It would be difficult to believe that this does not
>>get you into trouble, outside of the Matrix.
>
>Well, I've never been in trouble with the law. Never been fired from
>any job. Never been told but once that I was crazy - when I asked a
>landlord to refund my cleaning deposit on an apartment in a college
>town. Do you really think I could work in the field I do without have
>been psychologically evaluated?
>
> I do confess to having one "phobia" - I'm a little unreasonable when
>it comes to snakes. It's all right with me if I Never see one, even
>on television - the source being a childhood experience when one of
>my friends, not I, was bitten and had to have a finger amputated.
>
>>That is not what we are here for, or at least not I am here for. There
>
>Neither am I and I'm a little sick of your personal attacks which are
>entirely off-topic and really only designed to cow me.
>
>>are plenty of miserable screwballs around, in other newsgroups, make
>>them your sitters. The rest of us are quite serious about these
>>things, and I don't mean things like voices in our heads.
>
>No, I'm here to suffer with you as I too am quite a serious person. I
>mean to counter racism where ever I find it and it is here in this
>newsgroup that it is rampant.
The problem is you are quick to brand anyone who disagrees with you a
racist without, apparently, paying attention to their argument. There
are lots of reasons to oppose wholesale immigration, especially by the
poor, other than racism. The costs to the taxpayers and the inability
to supply needed services for an exploding population are a few.
>
>>You don't answer any of the criticism made, solid criticisms that
>>actually must be answered, if you would be considered a valid
>
>And you have? The topic here is Democracy. Do you care to explain
>why you can't address the topic instead of attacking me?
>
>>participant in a debate. You come back with unrelated, self-serving
>>rants, propaganda clippage, as if that is a valid currency here. It
>>isn't. Try another newsgroup for that. Maybe argue religion with
>
>It's only invalid if I post it. If Lets Roll or the Maniack or H
>Reader or Ollie posts their racists rants, you're right in there
>cheering them on and agreeing. Again. I understand Scipio. You
>can't MAKE me see things your way and thus, must drive me away so that
>other people, perhaps, will not see that you are obsessively compelled
>to defend what you say as "real' and that all else is propaganda,
>indoctrination, or is "unrelated" to your "Creed".
See what I mean? Show me ANY racist remarks, much less rants, that
I've posted. I have pointed out over and over that the racist approach
only denigrates the real concerns about immigration and makes it
harder to explain the issue to the general public.
Just so it's clear, it's very unlikely that I am "racist" toward
Hispanics considering I am married to one, and who is a legal
immigrant. Her view of illegal and excessive immigration is the same
as mine, but I suppose then she's a "racist" too.
The reason that you continually try to lable me is that you are
incapable of carrying on an argument with someone who can fight back
with logic and data. Once more, show me where I made any racist
remarks.
>
>>creationists or something. You might actually enjoy that, give it a
>>go.
>
>Been there, done that. I am not a candidate for conversion to any
>"religion", "pseudo-religion" or "school of thought". I definitely
>have my own - which I choose to share with few people because I am not
>looking for a following either.
>
>>Here is one example, and I'm done:
>>
>>>
>>>> >It is absolutely and indubitably NOT the duty of the citizens of a
>>>> >Democracy to accept "new" things that they might choose or reject legally.
>
>The law of the land is the Constitution, agreed?
In part. It's only the basis and the actaul "laws" only need to be not
inconsistent with it. This is subject to wide interpretation as
evidenced by the continuous change of the law.
>
>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>If you can't explain this satisfactorily, and in the _context of my
>>statement_, you need to give up pursuing these topics.
>
>Well, I'm about done too. I don't like spending my time finding
>references that you refuse to accept or else taking the flak, when I
>don't post the reference, or for not having backed up what I say with
>"facts". If I can't tell you what you want to hear, you refuse to
>hear it but here goes:
I get it. You want us to capitulate to your infinite wisdom without
question. "No facts, no references, but I'm right so believe it". Does
that about sum it up?
>
>
>
>1. It is the function of a Democratic government to implement
>policies (laws, are policies that have penalties if policy is
>violated).
A) That's the policy of all government so a tautology
>2. It is the function of a democratic government to have those
>policies ratified by the majority of voters according to a schedule of
>election, referendum,or direct initiative (the last two mainly
>function at the local levels)
>3. It is the function of a democratic government to change policy if
>the policy does not prove workable, however popular or unpopular the
>policy may be among voters..
See A)
>
>4. It is the Duty of people living in a democratic society to be aware
>of the issues over which policy may be made
How do you make this happen? It obviously isn't the case.
>5. It is the Duty of people living in a democratic society to make
>their views known to the policy makers (the people have NO enforcement
>powers other than to vote for or against the policy-maker)
But some democracies, like parliamentary ones, have more direct
influence over the actions of those elected.
>6. It is the Duty of people in living in a democratic society to vote
>in order to elect policy-makers who will implement policies that,
>hopefully, reflect their views keeping in mind that the body politic
>must "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
>Secure the Blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" ( the
>Constitution of United States of America).
So our democracy is a failure on thsi criterion alone.
>
>Representative (proportionately) government is, idealistically, a
>representation of the Majority views regarding policy. "Government
>for the people, of the people and by the people" comes from Lincoln's
>Gettysburg address. It is a principal of American government that does
>not appear in either the Constitution or in the Articles of
>Confederation in those words. Instead,Lincoln restates what our
>Constitution guarantees: that Congress will enact laws that permit
>repair of deficiencies in the social system that the people are slow
>to implement on their own.
That was Lincoln's interpretation of those ideas, not an addendum to
them.
>
>You don't agree? I suggest reading _Decision in Philadelphia - The
>Constitutional Convention of 1787_ by Christopher and James Collier.
>
>7. It is the duty of citizens living in a Democratic society to abide
>by the laws passed variously by the Congress as well a their sovereign
>state legislatures.
Yeah, that works too. Does that include immigration laws?
>8. It is the duty of each citizen to accept the governing policy (New
>Things) until such time as the policy is changed by the governing
>body.
>
>It is fact that nowhere in our Constitution is there mention of
>minorities but, in their great wisdom, "our Founding Fathers were
>conscious of the problem and built protections for them into the
>entire fabric of the document
Except of course, for slaves.
>. ...... Our government is made to work
>not only when good people are in power but also when it is in the
>hands of fools and Knaves.......". (Collier and Collier p.354)
>
>It is a critical point here that the American people can FORCE their
>government into action, but the people are slow to be aroused and
>people are easily deluded. The people usually don't resort to
>violence when they can almost always gain their ends through political
>means. When people really want a change, they are willing to work for
>it.
The problem is that there is no hard defintion of democracy. It's a
very nebulous concept and even its charactertistics are elusive below
the idea of government by the people. What that actually means is the
issue.
>
>I want a change and I believe that you do too. I am here (and not
>just here) working for that change. We seemingly differ on what we
>want but compromise, as our Founding Fathers knew, is also a principle
>of good government. I want Mexicans to be in this country legally,
>with valid documentation, and with all the civil rights our
>Constitution guarantees to Citizens *and* legal aliens You,
>seemingly, don't want them here at all legally or otherwise and are
>willing to break the law (never mind what the other guys are doing to
>break the law - it's still YOUR duty to obey it) in order to enforce
>your views.
I want anyone who is in this country to be here legally. To you, this
means legalizing people already here illegally. To me it means
removing anyone here illegally and requiring them to use the legal
process. In addition, some immigration has negative consequences far
beyond any benefit it might provide. That kind of immigration should
be denied. The immigration policy of the US should, like all US
policies, be in the best interests of the American people, not used
for vote pandering as is the current vogue. Unrestricted immigration
by the poor, unskilled and illiterate is insane, regardless of where
it comes from. Controlled immigration of people with needed skills not
otherwise available should be the goal.
>
>This is the source of our conflict and you stand unwilling to
>compromise by accepting "New things" or by waiting until the election
>comes so that you may cast your vote to elect or reject them. It is
>your endorsement of violence in forcing your views that I cannot
>conscience and feel that I have a duty to oppose.
>
>Life is not fair and all of us have to, in some measure, except less
>than the ideal. I have implicit trust in our form of government and
>that it is ultimately a fair and just system. Lack of patience and an
>over-weaning pride may yet rob some of us of our Liberty and it is
>this that concerns me - maybe you think too much - I think there is
>no more worthy cause.
>
>Calm, straight,and forward,
>Porfiria
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|