Bible Discussion: Bush **Continues** To Prove Himself To Be An IGNORANT Bigot.

Bush **Continues** To Prove Himself To Be An IGNORANT Bigot.
Posts: 195

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

GOOD RIDDANCE On Nov. 2nd To Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
2004-10-01 01:45:38 EST

It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!

My comment to the inane RRR Cult: << **Bronx cheer ** >>

ROTFL!! (I **love** to see those rat turds taking such BIG hits!)

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6144351/

House defeats amendment on gay marriage
Deals measure emphatic defeat by 227-186 vote

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:22 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House emphatically
defeated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes
pushed to a vote by GOP leaders in the run-up to Election Day.

The vote was 227-186, 49 votes shy of the two-thirds
needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush
backed but the Senate had previously scuttled.

Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with
the vote's outcome.

[[[ Gee!!! What a... uh... "surprise." ]]]

"Because activist judges...

[[[ LOL!!! There's the "IGNORANT" part, from this
thread's subject header. Some "President" we've
got! He must've been ASLEEP in Civics class the
day that the Constitution's checks and balances
system was covered. Want to see a person who
is BONE-ignorant about our system of government?
Just watch for him/her to refer to the judiciary as
being "activist" judges. And you'll have a real
DUMMY on your hands every single time! (Oh. Do
you know what those SAME losers call judges who
are JUST as "active" in their rulings, but make
rulings that support NEOCON agendas?? Why --
THOSE are "constructionist" judges!! (ROTFL!!!
Neocons/RRR cultists: what a collection of tools!) ]]]

" ...and local officials in some parts of the country are
seeking to redefine marriage...

[[[ Sorry, Bush -- but "redefining" marriage would require
that hateful and loathsome Bigotry Amendment of yours
that just so neatly went down the tubes. Because
WITHOUT it, the Constitution **already** fails to deny
marriage to same-sex couples. The ONLY ones seeking
to redefine marriage are hateful and moronic loons
like YOU. ]]]

" ...for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in
defending traditional marriage," the president said. "

[[[ And THERE is the "Bigot" part of the subject line. ]]]



-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Kerry -- two medals: a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well -- they don't give medals for
going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry -- a hero, Bush -- a zero.

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening...
The Bush 'economic' policy: - 3 million jobs and counting...
The Bush Iraq lie: - 1,052 GIs, and mounting...

Having Bush louse up my country: Worthless

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html


AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

ALSO worth a look:

http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html

And... here's what happens to people like you & me:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html

However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"

www.awolbush.com

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

GOOD RIDDANCE On Nov. 2nd To Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
2004-10-01 06:22:13 EST
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:


>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!

> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.

This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
ally are pretty astute. Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
(and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
lawmakers!!

> That is why the President says what he says, because the
> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
> are not in line with the populations they serve.

See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist judges"
RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the Constitution.

>> My comment to the inane RRR Cult: << **Bronx cheer ** >>
>>
>> ROTFL!! (I **love** to see those rat turds taking such BIG hits!)
>>
>> From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6144351/
>>
>> House defeats amendment on gay marriage
>> Deals measure emphatic defeat by 227-186 vote
>>
>> The Associated Press
>> Updated: 7:22 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2004
>>
>> WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House emphatically
>> defeated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
>> Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes
>> pushed to a vote by GOP leaders in the run-up to Election Day.
>>
>> The vote was 227-186, 49 votes shy of the two-thirds
>> needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush
>> backed but the Senate had previously scuttled.
>>
>> Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with
>> the vote's outcome.
>>
>> [[[ Gee!!! What a... uh... "surprise." ]]]
>>
>> "Because activist judges...
>>
>> [[[ LOL!!! There's the "IGNORANT" part, from this
>> thread's subject header. Some "President" we've
>> got! He must've been ASLEEP in Civics class the
>> day that the Constitution's checks and balances
>> system was covered. Want to see a person who
>> is BONE-ignorant about our system of government?
>> Just watch for him/her to refer to the judiciary as
>> being "activist" judges. And you'll have a real
>> DUMMY on your hands every single time! (Oh. Do
>> you know what those SAME losers call judges who
>> are JUST as "active" in their rulings, but make
>> rulings that support NEOCON agendas?? Why --
>> THOSE are "constructionist" judges!! (ROTFL!!!
>> Neocons/RRR cultists: what a collection of tools!) ]]]
>>
>> " ...and local officials in some parts of the country are
>> seeking to redefine marriage...
>>
>> [[[ Sorry, Bush -- but "redefining" marriage would require
>> that hateful and loathsome Bigotry Amendment of yours
>> that just so neatly went down the tubes. Because
>> WITHOUT it, the Constitution **already** fails to deny
>> marriage to same-sex couples. The ONLY ones seeking
>> to redefine marriage are hateful and moronic loons
>> like YOU. ]]]
>>
>> " ...for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in
>> defending traditional marriage," the president said. "
>>
>> [[[ And THERE is the "Bigot" part of the subject line. ]]]




-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.

And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Kerry -- two medals: a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well -- they don't give medals for
going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry -- a hero, Bush -- a zero.

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening...
The Bush 'economic' policy: - 3 million jobs and counting...
The Bush Iraq lie: - 1,052 GIs, and mounting...

Having Bush louse up my country: Worthless

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html


AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

ALSO worth a look:

http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html

And... here's what happens to people like you & me:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html

However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"

www.awolbush.com

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Johnny
2004-10-01 06:35:22 EST

"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<*2@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4164e934.138666329@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!

That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.

That is why the President says what he says, because the voting record, and
the activist judges and local governments are not in line with the
populations they serve.



Andrealphus
2004-10-01 07:09:36 EST
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
> <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:41752aff.155511537@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>>
>>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>>
>> This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
>> which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
>> system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
>> ally are pretty astute.
>
> What is astute about failing to represent the constituency to the
> point that it not is reflected adequately in the legislature?
> What is astute or objective about exalting personal agenda or some
> friend's agenda above the constituency's wishes?

There is no requirement to vote to the "will of the people" in our
constitution. You seem to have the ideas of a representative body confused
with representative mob rule.

If individual freedoms and liberties is a "personal agenda" then there is
something wrong with your camp of thought.

>
>> Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
>> (and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
>> confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
>> for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
>> liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
>> Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
>> of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
>> Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
>> lawmakers!!
>>
>
> Unrepresentative and non-objective.
>
>>> That is why the President says what he says, because the
>>> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
>>> are not in line with the populations they serve.
>>
>> See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist judges"
>> RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the Constitution.
>>
>
> The cult is the minority element in this area.

But growing in power every year.

--

__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."



Andrealphus
2004-10-01 07:36:21 EST
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
> news:QVa7d.78$UP1.45@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W.
>>> Bush!" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:41752aff.155511537@netnews.mchsi.com...
>>>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
>>>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>>>>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>>>>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>>>>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>>>>
>>>>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>>>>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>>>>
>>>> This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
>>>> which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
>>>> system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
>>>> ally are pretty astute.
>>>
>>> What is astute about failing to represent the constituency to the
>>> point that it not is reflected adequately in the legislature?
>>> What is astute or objective about exalting personal agenda or some
>>> friend's agenda above the constituency's wishes?
>>
>> There is no requirement to vote to the "will of the people" in our
>> constitution. You seem to have the ideas of a representative body
>> confused
>> with representative mob rule.
>
> Representative is doing what your constituents want done.

Not, by necessity, true. Representative is hearing the voices of your
constituency, and voting for what will benifit them based on your
experience. With what you suggest, we could simply set up an internet
voting site and decide on all of the issues. Who needs congress or judges
after all?

> There is no other meaning of representative.
> In a Democratic Republic the majority is supposed to rule,

Again, not true. Issues of civil rights, for example, are not the purview
of mob rule. Under your simplistic model of a representative democracy, all
of the Baptists and Catholics could vote to kill off all the Mormons, and
that would be just fine.


> pure and
> simple. Only if the majority rule can be determined to actually be
> causing harm to the minority element can it be overturned somehow.

Again, not true. The law need only be determined to be unconstitutional,
and it can be overturned. That is, after all, the reason we have a
constitution, a basic framework for our laws.


> I do not like seeing our nation becoming an unjust false-egalitarian
> dictatorship without representation of the majority's desires in
> effect.

I think you need to take a few courses in basic civics before you argue this
topic.

>
>> If individual freedoms and liberties is a "personal agenda" then
>> there is something wrong with your camp of thought.
>
> I belive in individual autonomy and in independence.
> I do not like being bound into a lawless dictatorship.
>

You are not bound to a lawless dictatorship, but at the same time you are
not bound to a lawless, mob run, tyranny.


>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
>>>> (and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
>>>> confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
>>>> for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
>>>> liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
>>>> Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
>>>> of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
>>>> Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
>>>> lawmakers!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unrepresentative and non-objective.
>>>
>>>>> That is why the President says what he says, because the
>>>>> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
>>>>> are not in line with the populations they serve.
>>>>
>>>> See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist
>>>> judges" RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The cult is the minority element in this area.
>>
>> But growing in power every year.
>>
>
> Still outnumbered and represented beyond constitutional procedure.

Not as long as Bush is giving them his undivided attention.

--

__________________________________
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes
up. It knows it must run faster than the
fastest lion or it will be killed...every morning
a lion wakes up it knows it must outrun the
slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It
doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a
gazelle...when the sun comes up, you'd
better be running."



Johnny
2004-10-01 07:53:49 EST

"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<*2@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41752aff.155511537@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>
>
>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>
>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>
> This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
> which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
> system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
> ally are pretty astute.

What is astute about failing to represent the constituency to the point that
it not is reflected adequately in the legislature?
What is astute or objective about exalting personal agenda or some friend's
agenda above the constituency's wishes?

> Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
> (and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
> confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
> for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
> liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
> Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
> of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
> Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
> lawmakers!!
>

Unrepresentative and non-objective.

>> That is why the President says what he says, because the
>> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
>> are not in line with the populations they serve.
>
> See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist judges"
> RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the Constitution.
>

The cult is the minority element in this area.



Pangur Ban
2004-10-01 08:04:57 EST
Johnny wrote:
> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
> <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:4164e934.138666329@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>
>
> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>
> That is why the President says what he says, because the voting record, and
> the activist judges and local governments are not in line with the
> populations they serve.
>
>
As the majority of the folks you mentioned above
were elected by the people - claiming they don't
represent the people is inane! You meant that
they didn't represent YOUR viewpoint which is a
minority viewpoint.

Pangur

Johnny
2004-10-01 08:13:53 EST

"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:QVa7d.78$UP1.45@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
>> <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> news:41752aff.155511537@netnews.mchsi.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
>>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>>>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>>>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>>>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>>>
>>>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>>>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>>>
>>> This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
>>> which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
>>> system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
>>> ally are pretty astute.
>>
>> What is astute about failing to represent the constituency to the
>> point that it not is reflected adequately in the legislature?
>> What is astute or objective about exalting personal agenda or some
>> friend's agenda above the constituency's wishes?
>
> There is no requirement to vote to the "will of the people" in our
> constitution. You seem to have the ideas of a representative body
> confused
> with representative mob rule.

Representative is doing what your constituents want done.
There is no other meaning of representative.
In a Democratic Republic the majority is supposed to rule, pure and simple.
Only if the majority rule can be determined to actually be causing harm to
the minority element can it be overturned somehow.
I do not like seeing our nation becoming an unjust false-egalitarian
dictatorship without representation of the majority's desires in effect.

> If individual freedoms and liberties is a "personal agenda" then there is
> something wrong with your camp of thought.

I belive in individual autonomy and in independence.
I do not like being bound into a lawless dictatorship.

>
>>
>>> Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
>>> (and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
>>> confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
>>> for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
>>> liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
>>> Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
>>> of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
>>> Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
>>> lawmakers!!
>>>
>>
>> Unrepresentative and non-objective.
>>
>>>> That is why the President says what he says, because the
>>>> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
>>>> are not in line with the populations they serve.
>>>
>>> See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist judges"
>>> RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the Constitution.
>>>
>>
>> The cult is the minority element in this area.
>
> But growing in power every year.
>

Still outnumbered and represented beyond constitutional procedure.



Johnny
2004-10-01 08:44:20 EST

"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
news:Vib7d.146$M05.32@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote in message
>> news:QVa7d.78$UP1.45@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W.
>>>> Bush!" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:41752aff.155511537@netnews.mchsi.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:35:22 -0500,
>>>>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>>>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>>>>>> had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>>>>>> sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>>>>>> proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>>>>>
>>>>>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>>>>>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a REPUBLIC -- *not* a pure democracy. And part of that
>>>>> which makes a republic work better than democracies is the former's
>>>>> system of the people electing to REPRESENT them, folks who gener-
>>>>> ally are pretty astute.
>>>>
>>>> What is astute about failing to represent the constituency to the
>>>> point that it not is reflected adequately in the legislature?
>>>> What is astute or objective about exalting personal agenda or some
>>>> friend's agenda above the constituency's wishes?
>>>
>>> There is no requirement to vote to the "will of the people" in our
>>> constitution. You seem to have the ideas of a representative body
>>> confused
>>> with representative mob rule.
>>
>> Representative is doing what your constituents want done.
>
> Not, by necessity, true. Representative is hearing the voices of your
> constituency, and voting for what will benifit them based on your
> experience. With what you suggest, we could simply set up an internet
> voting site and decide on all of the issues. Who needs congress or judges
> after all?

Good idea.

>
>> There is no other meaning of representative.
>> In a Democratic Republic the majority is supposed to rule,
>
> Again, not true. Issues of civil rights, for example, are not the purview
> of mob rule. Under your simplistic model of a representative democracy,
> all
> of the Baptists and Catholics could vote to kill off all the Mormons, and
> that would be just fine.


You underestimate the people of this nation.
Why do you want to control the good for the benefit of the deviant?

>
>
>> pure and
>> simple. Only if the majority rule can be determined to actually be
>> causing harm to the minority element can it be overturned somehow.
>
> Again, not true. The law need only be determined to be unconstitutional,
> and it can be overturned. That is, after all, the reason we have a
> constitution, a basic framework for our laws.
>
>
>> I do not like seeing our nation becoming an unjust false-egalitarian
>> dictatorship without representation of the majority's desires in
>> effect.
>
> I think you need to take a few courses in basic civics before you argue
> this
> topic.
>
>>
>>> If individual freedoms and liberties is a "personal agenda" then
>>> there is something wrong with your camp of thought.
>>
>> I belive in individual autonomy and in independence.
>> I do not like being bound into a lawless dictatorship.
>>
>
> You are not bound to a lawless dictatorship,

Bullshit.

> but at the same time you are
> not bound to a lawless, mob run, tyranny.
>

Bullshit.
The mob is not the majority, yet they are running it.
You still in love with the "gellinlikeafelon" thing?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the more *astute* of our lawmakers
>>>>> (and, in this nation, the appeals court judges that they appomy or
>>>>> confirm) almost always do their very BEST to scour the Constitution
>>>>> for those aspects of it that grant the greatest amount of personal
>>>>> liberty to the people. And they system worked WELL. The Bigotry
>>>>> Amendment is a hateful and loathsome concept, so the more astute
>>>>> of our Congresspeople very properly and sensibly SCRAPPED it.
>>>>> Good riddance to it, and KUDOS to those fair-minded and egalitarian
>>>>> lawmakers!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unrepresentative and non-objective.
>>>>
>>>>>> That is why the President says what he says, because the
>>>>>> voting record, and the activist judges and local governments
>>>>>> are not in line with the populations they serve.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above. AND farther down, about your moronic "activist
>>>>> judges" RRR-cult jargon that reveals your IGNORANCE of the
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The cult is the minority element in this area.
>>>
>>> But growing in power every year.
>>>
>>
>> Still outnumbered and represented beyond constitutional procedure.
>
> Not as long as Bush is giving them his undivided attention.
>

The people are not being represented sufficiently.



Johnny
2004-10-01 09:32:02 EST

"Pangur Ban" <Pangur-Ban@SatisHouse.org> wrote in message
news:JJb7d.465787$OB3.425157@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Johnny wrote:
>> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
>> <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> news:4164e934.138666329@netnews.mchsi.com...
>>
>>> It was DECISIVE, folks!! The House of Representatives
>>>had the wisdom, the compassion, the faieness, and the common
>>>sense, to**throroughly** SCUTTLE the loathsome and hateful
>>>proposed Bigotry Amendment, with 49 votes to spare!
>>
>>
>> That vote is not indicative of the constiuency's wishes.
>> The people were not sufficiently represented in that vote.
>>
>> That is why the President says what he says, because the voting record,
>> and the activist judges and local governments are not in line with the
>> populations they serve.
> As the majority of the folks you mentioned above were elected by the
> people - claiming they don't represent the people is inane!

Why do they not vote in line with their disctricts then?
Where was the poll of their constitutents in this matter?

> You meant that they didn't represent YOUR viewpoint which is a minority
> viewpoint.
>

I meant they failed to represent their constituents' viewpoint in this
matter.



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron