Supreme Court is out of control

DTJ wrote:
>
> Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
> cause political fights in a driving group. I

LOL. What a hypocrite. Faced with uncomfortable facts, you just run
and hide.

Just like your hero, GWB.

Classic.

E.P.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
>> > ****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
>> > conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> Think just a second - Can you remember why the Civil War was fought?

It depends. The reasons were different depending on what side of the isue
on was on. Therefore, there was no single reason. The written transcripts
of proceedings at most southern state houses that succeded clearly
demonstrate that states rights was the core issue (from the perspective of
teh south). However, most history books were written from the Union
perspective, which has a far different take on the reason "freedom for
slaves". From he souther perspectie, the slave issue was secondary to the
rights of the states to decide that issue (whch could have been any other
issue the federal establishment may have tried to impose..it just happened
to be the slave issue)

> Does the name each party takes have anything to do with their founding
> philosophy? Has the focus of either party changed in the last 100
> years?

Democrats = socialism today. Hmmm...I guess you're right.

>
> Do your own homework.
>
>> > But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
>> > racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.
>>
>> Cite
>
> This is called "personal experience". Liberal people are less likely
> to be racist. While that may be an uncomfortable fact for some
> enlightened conservatives, it's true.

I've personally not found that to be true. But personal experience of
either of us does not a fact make.

>
> Do you think those guys in North Idaho were members of the ACLU? Think
> about it.

Is the ACLU now a poliical party? Confused as to your reference to that
organization as it pertains to the context of the discussion.

>
>> > Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
>> > again.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>>
>> Let me see if I understand this. J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, Colin
>> Powell,
>> Clarence Thomas (the list goes on and on) are all racist?
>
> Boy, you surely can't read. Go re-read what I wrote, and quote exactly
> where I wrote anything like that.
>
> You can't, because I didn't. Try again.

Hmmm...lets try this from a different angle. I would be curious to know
your thoughts as to why persons of African heritage would be associated with
the Republican party based on your claims that that party is more likely to
have racist members. The last racist comment I've heard from a political
figure was from Howard Dean referring to "the hotel staff."

>
>> Your assertions are quite over the top.
>
> No, they are plain facts. Uncomfortable, or not well-known, but
> absolutely true. Now, if you think that you can disprove what I've
> said, either with different facts, or sound logic, be my guest.
>

Since these are your assertions, I would say that you have the obligatation
to prove them true before anyone else is obligate to prove the opposite. I
only ask that you provide reputable sources for what you believe to be fact
(and Moveon.org doesn't count). I respect that you believe this. I would
simply like to have more than "personal experience" as the basis. As a
option I can simply put your "personal experience" against my "personal
experience" an, since they are the opposite, they cancel each other out
(from a weight perspective).

James C. Reeves wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > James C. Reeves wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We? You weren't born yet, sonny. Your knowledge of history is
> >> > ****-poor - in those days, folks in the Democratic party were the
> >> > conservatives, and the Republicans were liberal.
> >>
> >> Cite.
> >
> > Think just a second - Can you remember why the Civil War was fought?
>
> It depends.

No, it actually doesn't. It was primarily a states-rights issue, AND
some trading (taxation) issues.

Democrats were primarily for states' rights in those days.

Republicans favored strong central governement. (The name-thing.)

>
> > Does the name each party takes have anything to do with their founding
> > philosophy? Has the focus of either party changed in the last 100
> > years?
>
> Democrats = socialism today. Hmmm...I guess you're right.

The Democrats are about as far away from socialism as you can get
without being a Republican. Your knowledge of the party's platform
must come from some GOP propaganda site, huh?

> >
> > Do your own homework.
> >
> >> > But hey, nowadays, I think you'll find that most folks who harbor
> >> > racist ideas are card-carrying Republicans.
> >>
> >> Cite
> >
> > This is called "personal experience". Liberal people are less likely
> > to be racist. While that may be an uncomfortable fact for some
> > enlightened conservatives, it's true.
>
> I've personally not found that to be true. But personal experience of
> either of us does not a fact make.

I'm sure that if you line up a bunch of racists, you'd come to find
that the majority of them vote GOP. I've never heard any liberal refer
to folks of middle eastern descent as "kikes" or "sand ******s."

Sure, if you want to believe that liberals are more racist, or even
equal, you go right ahead.

> > Do you think those guys in North Idaho were members of the ACLU? Think
> > about it.
>
> Is the ACLU now a poliical party? Confused as to your reference to that
> organization as it pertains to the context of the discussion.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Knock it off.

> >> > Now, go read up a little on your history before you show your ass
> >> > again.
> >> >
> >> > E.P.
> >>
> >> Let me see if I understand this. J.C. Watts, Condoleeza Rice, Colin
> >> Powell,
> >> Clarence Thomas (the list goes on and on) are all racist?
> >
> > Boy, you surely can't read. Go re-read what I wrote, and quote exactly
> > where I wrote anything like that.
> >
> > You can't, because I didn't. Try again.
>
> Hmmm...lets try this from a different angle.

No, let's not. You attempted to set up a strawman. I caught you at it.

> >> Your assertions are quite over the top.
> >
> > No, they are plain facts. Uncomfortable, or not well-known, but
> > absolutely true. Now, if you think that you can disprove what I've
> > said, either with different facts, or sound logic, be my guest.
> >
>
> Since these are your assertions, I would say that you have the obligatation
> to prove them true before anyone else is obligate to prove the opposite.

This isn't a formal debate. Just because you don't wish to acknowledge
what is a plain fact doesn't imply that it isn't a fact.

I realize it's not polite to say that conservatives are more likely by
far to be racist. But that doesn't mean it's not true. It's also not
polite to call Hillary Clinton unattractive. That doesn't imply that
she's not.

Again, by plain, straight-forward logic, you don't have anywhere to
stand.

E.P.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:14:23 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:

>> Think just a second - Can you remember why the Civil War was fought?
>
>It depends. The reasons were different depending on what side of the isue
>on was on. Therefore, there was no single reason. The written transcripts
>of proceedings at most southern state houses that succeded clearly
>demonstrate that states rights was the core issue (from the perspective of
>teh south). However, most history books were written from the Union
>perspective, which has a far different take on the reason "freedom for
>slaves". From he souther perspectie, the slave issue was secondary to the
>rights of the states to decide that issue (whch could have been any other
>issue the federal establishment may have tried to impose..it just happened
>to be the slave issue)

That is rather simplistic and incorrect. I know in school we were
taught that the issue was states rights, specifically the right to
decide if one could own slaves. You can spin each side's argument all
you want, but the fact is that the war was fought because the North
did not think slavery was acceptable, and the South felt that the
North should not make the decision for them, which boils down to
states rights.

"James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
...
>>
> It was the most liberal members of the high court that sided with the
> interests of the "big guys". Ironically, it was the more conservative
> members that sided with the "little guy" on this one.
>
That is how it is *supposed* to be!

> wrote in message
oups.com...

>> >> I hate liberalism.
>> >
>> >All that means is that you *hate.*
>>
>> To an idiot
>
> Ah, yes - when faced with an argument you cannot address - you call
> names.

OK, so you think that name calling is not a good way to
argue a point, I see...

>Intellectually inferior.
>
OOOHH, the irony is so good!

that was funny, thanks, were you trying to make a joke?

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> DTJ wrote:
>>
>> Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
>> cause political fights in a driving group. I
>
> LOL. What a hypocrite. Faced with uncomfortable facts, you just run
> and hide.

His point is valid, however, I do believe that
RAD is a "driving group", do you disagree?

>
> Just like your hero, GWB.
>
> Classic.

Yes, it is, but not exactly as you meant.

Bernard

Bernard Farquart wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >
> > DTJ wrote:
> >>
> >> Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
> >> cause political fights in a driving group. I
> >
> > LOL. What a hypocrite. Faced with uncomfortable facts, you just run
> > and hide.
>
> His point is valid, however, I do believe that
> RAD is a "driving group", do you disagree?

Absolutely not. But I was certainly not the first one to degenerate
the conversation into politics, right? Maybe, if you look at this
thread carefully, you could determine who, between DTJ and I, fired the
first flame in the politics can-o-worms.

Continuing the conversation doesn't help matters at all, I do agree.
But then, I guess you get painted with that brush too...

> > Just like your hero, GWB.
> >
> > Classic.
>
> Yes, it is, but not exactly as you meant.

No, it is *precisely* how I meant it. Killfiling someone because they
point at holes in your core beliefs is cowardice, plain and simple.
Yeah, just like serving in the NG when you could have been actually
doing the thing that folks who *didn't* have connections did - go to
the SEATO.

Thoughful people actually try and see the reasoning behind the
opposition's ideas - they don't just hop up and down and call people
"****ing idiots."

E.P.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Bernard Farquart wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > DTJ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
>> >> cause political fights in a driving group. I
>> >
>> > LOL. What a hypocrite. Faced with uncomfortable facts, you just run
>> > and hide.
>>
>> His point is valid, however, I do believe that
>> RAD is a "driving group", do you disagree?
>
> Absolutely not. But I was certainly not the first one to degenerate
> the conversation into politics, right? Maybe, if you look at this
> thread carefully, you could determine who, between DTJ and I, fired the
> first flame in the politics can-o-worms.

I would have to pick.... the O.P.

I made a point about name calling, DTJ replied,
and you jumped in , sound about right?

> Continuing the conversation doesn't help matters at all, I do agree.
> But then, I guess you get painted with that brush too...
>
Which brush is that, I wonder?

>> > Just like your hero, GWB.
>> >
>> > Classic.
>>
>> Yes, it is, but not exactly as you meant.
>
> No, it is *precisely* how I meant it. Killfiling someone because they
> point at holes in your core beliefs is cowardice, plain and simple.
> Yeah, just like serving in the NG when you could have been actually
> doing the thing that folks who *didn't* have connections did - go to
> the SEATO.

Uh, I only killfile people with nothing to contribute,
I even waited until recently to killfile the resident troll
because some of it's dribble made me snicker.



>
> Thoughful people actually try and see the reasoning behind the
> opposition's ideas - they don't just hop up and down and call people
> "****ing idiots."

Yes, and are you claiming not to have tossed out some
of what you rail against?

Bernard

Bernard Farquart wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Bernard Farquart wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > DTJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you bother replying to a troll? This idiot is attempting to
> >> >> cause political fights in a driving group. I
> >> >
> >> > LOL. What a hypocrite. Faced with uncomfortable facts, you just run
> >> > and hide.
> >>
> >> His point is valid, however, I do believe that
> >> RAD is a "driving group", do you disagree?
> >
> > Absolutely not. But I was certainly not the first one to degenerate
> > the conversation into politics, right? Maybe, if you look at this
> > thread carefully, you could determine who, between DTJ and I, fired the
> > first flame in the politics can-o-worms.
>
> I would have to pick.... the O.P.

So why are you griping at me? DTJ is saying how he hates liberals. I
responded. Without name-calling, BTW.


> > Continuing the conversation doesn't help matters at all, I do agree.
> > But then, I guess you get painted with that brush too...
> >
> Which brush is that, I wonder?

OT posting about politics in a driving ng, just the thing you were
complaining about WRT my posts.

> >> > Just like your hero, GWB.
> >> >
> >> > Classic.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is, but not exactly as you meant.
> >
> > No, it is *precisely* how I meant it. Killfiling someone because they
> > point at holes in your core beliefs is cowardice, plain and simple.
> > Yeah, just like serving in the NG when you could have been actually
> > doing the thing that folks who *didn't* have connections did - go to
> > the SEATO.
>
> Uh, I only killfile people with nothing to contribute,
> I even waited until recently to killfile the resident troll
> because some of it's dribble made me snicker.

What gave you the idea I was talking to/about you? I directed my
original remarks to DTJ, and the "your" above is the global "you".

> >
> > Thoughful people actually try and see the reasoning behind the
> > opposition's ideas - they don't just hop up and down and call people
> > "****ing idiots."
>
> Yes, and are you claiming not to have tossed out some
> of what you rail against?

I have never anonymously called anyone a "****ing idiot", nor do I
engage in first-strike name-calling. I do use some of that against
anonymous flamers. It's one thing to point out how you may disagree
with a political viewpoint. It's quite another to immediately foam at
the mouth and call names. If you see no distinction, then there's no
use for further discussion. If there is a difference, then which side
would you place me on?

E.P.