A lap around "The Ring"

LOL, good to know where you stand, Randy. One of the few good things
about these dark times under Bush is that people are increasingly
willing to speak up and take politics seriously. One of the cultural
defects in American society has been treating politics as a dirty word,
and all politicians as bad guys.

I welcome your angry diatribe. While it's obvious I can't convince you
of the threat of Bush's neo-fascism, expressing our views is fundamental
to what is left of a free and open society.

Marty

Randy Magruder wrote:
>>Classic right-wing difficulty with cognitive dissonance. Terrorist
>>attacked us so my leader must be right about who the threat is.
>
>
> Classic left-wing loon, if it's a republican in office, war is bad. If
> it's a democrat...more war, we need more war!
>
>
>>Michael Moore, great American hero. Has the guts and the brains to
>>seek the awful truth and use his art to communicate.
>
>
> ROFL! Michael Moore, the self-hating American "hero"? Good one! It
> doesn't bother you a bit that most of the crap in Fahrenheit 9/11 were
> proven lies that no thinking person could take seriously. Oh wait, I
> forgot about that caveat: "thinking person". Take him as seriously as
> you like then.
>
>
>>Yes, Randy it has never been a better time to be a liberal Democrat.
>>Liberals are what stands between America and the jugernaught of
>>ocorporatism being engineered by the Bush neo-fascists.
>
>
> LOL! It's really funny how when you don't have an enemy, you can
> create one.
>
>
>>>Oh yes, it's judicial tyranny when ever the right-wing doesn't like a
>>
>>court ruling. Like the Terri Shiavo case, right?
>
>
> You don't understand the constitution one whit. You're as ignorant as
> most of the raving left.
>
>
>>Final authority? If you believe in democratic principles of
>>government that is of, by, and for the people, no. The judiciary
>>interpets the law. I think that was covered in Government 101.
>
>
> The judiciary interprets the law. They do not WRITE it (well, up until
> recently, when somehow the judiciary starting finding things that
> didn't exist in the constitution). Since you have so much respect for
> our judiciary, I assume you also supported the internment of the
> Japanese in WWII and the institution of slavery...since both were at
> one point fully backed by our laws. But hey, we don't want to flout
> the law right?
>
> Last time I checked, each branch of government swears fealty to the
> Constitution, NOT the judiciary.
>
> The truth of the matter is pretty easy to find. Start with reading
> Federalist papers 78 and 79 regarding the power of the courts. Or, if
> your attention span lasts long enough, read this and I dare you to
> dispute its accuracy:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43472
>
> I have to say that after I write these posts I ask myself why I'm even
> bothering. You cleasrly are absolutely CONSUMED with such utter hatred
> towards all things conservative, that my guess is that there is nothing
> that anyone could say or do to convince you that you were wrong.
>
> So failing that, my suggestion is that you travel to Baghdad, and in a
> public street corner (with, of course, the aid of a translator), you
> tell the Iraqi people that they aren't really free, and all the blather
> about Bush. I expect you won't make it out of that square alive.
>
> Or alternatively, there are many organizations which are still looking
> for the "useful idiots" of Stalin's day, to do their bidding. You
> might find an organization like this and offer yourself as a spokesman.
> You have the concept of 'reading your lines' down pat.
>
> I keep thinking of the movie "Lethal Weapon 2" where Danny Glover is in
> the South African embassy saying he wants to move to S. Africa to end
> apartheid, and he is using phrases like "oppresive white regime", and
> Joe Pesci's character, with a big stupid grin on his face, is doing the
> role of "amen, brother" and says stupidly "oppressive white regime!"
> parroting Danny Glover. When I see posts like yours that look like
> they could have been cut 'n pasted from the moveon.org website,
> complete with every lie and tired cliche trotted out, touted as fat, I
> just see you as a parrot incapable of any kind of rational thought on
> the subject, because you are utterly blinded by your hatred of all
> things not far left.
>
> Randy

Hmmm... www.freerepublic.com

Thanks, I'll add that to my reference list of sources of extremest
right-wing drivel.

Marty

Randy Magruder wrote:
> Hopefully this exerpt isn't too 'dry' for you to follow, but read it
> carefully if you da
>
> --------------------
> AT THIS POINT, ONE might expect a discussion of how John Marshall in
> Marbury v. Madison declared the Court to be the final arbiter of the
> Constitution. Kramer, however, shows that this standard interpretation
> of Marbury is erroneous. At most, Marbury stands for the proposition
> that the Court may make reference the Constitution when deciding a
> case. In 1803, this was not a given. We must remember that in the
> British system only Parliament could make constitutional
> interpretations. Parliament was the ultimate sovereign and, to
> paraphrase Blackstone, could make or unmake any law as it saw fit. The
> Marbury Court simply recognized that because the people are the
> ultimate sovereigns in America, all three coordinate branches may refer
> to the people's fundamental law when carrying out their assigned
> constitutional duties. Had Marshall declared the Supreme Court to be
> the final arbiter, President Jefferson would likely have had him sent
> to the federal gaol.
>
> In essence, Marshall's Marbury opinion simply articulated the doctrine
> of "departmentalism" favored by the Jeffersonian Republicans.
> Departmentalist theory is perhaps best examined in the context of
> President Jefferson's approach to the Sedition Act. Upon entering
> office, Jefferson ordered the cessation of all federal sedition
> prosecutions and he pardoned those who had been convicted. In 1804,
> Jefferson received a letter from Abigail Adams criticizing his handling
> of the Sedition Act controversy. Mrs. Adams argued that because the
> judges had upheld the Sedition Act, President Jefferson had overstepped
> his constitutional bounds when terminating prosecutions and pardoning
> offenders.
>
> In a polite response, Jefferson reminded Mrs. Adams that "nothing in
> the constitution has given [the judges] the right to decide for the
> executive, more than the Executive to decide for them." Both branches,
> continued Jefferson, "are equally independent in the sphere assigned to
> them." Jefferson recognized that the judges, "believing the law
> constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and
> imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the
> constitution." However, this did not bind him when performing his
> duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was
> unconstitutional, he "was bound to remit the execution of it."
>
> Jefferson, like Madison in his Report to the Virginia House of
> Delegates on the Sedition Act, denied that the judiciary was the final
> arbiter of the Constitution. To give any one "co-equal" branch such a
> power would make it "despotic." Of course, a final arbiter is needed if
> the branches cannot reach an accommodation on certain issues. And for
> Jefferson this ultimate power resided in the people of the several
> states -- the ultimate sovereigns in the American system. By using the
> ballot box or meeting in convention, the people would settle all
> disputed constitutional questions.
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290860/posts

This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John
Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is....

Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ?

Sad..

Mitch

"John Wallace" > wrote in >
> Sometimes Stalin really did say it best.

Versus your concrete argument that half of the Iraqi population is going to
die of cancer...

They sell refills over the net now and its cheap

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in
> Oh come on Randy, that is the lamest non-argument. FFS at least deal with
> the question - if you can't answer it, are you yourself not curious as to
> why?!
>
> I thought such questioning was an innate part of humanity.

Where do you get "half a million children" from?

I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless
sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort
into.

>> Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror
could last fifty years or more?>>

I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is
that a conspiracy you also hold?)

>> It's the perfect "non enemy" to justify any spending, any rolling
back of civil liberties, the bill of liberties in the US, trial by jury
over here.

I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil
liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where
some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this
administration?

>> Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit,
peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die
from.

And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making
us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times
and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a
buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're
not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't
responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of
corporations? Sounds kinda like you are...

>> Compared to 9/11, twice as many children die every day from the
effects of poverty, but our efforts to do anything about that are
pitiful.

What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did
you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate?

>> Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium
shells

I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well.

>> Why, because that's all that Britain and the US allowed in
under the embargo, despite the UN resolution specifically allowing such
drugs. >>

Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during
the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain
were stopping him. I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily
sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt
individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the
French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that
Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but
I suppose you'll just deny that, too).

The whole conspiracy thing is not only tired, it's also completely
illogical and isn't borne out by reality. Those claiming Bush is dumb
as a stump now credit him for somehow concocting and scheming world
domination - saying one or the other depending upon what day of the
week it is, how they feel, whether there's a full moon, etc. Then
there's Dick Cheney, you know, also known as Beelzebub. You just
vilify and make him the Dark Prince, and it really doesn't matter to
you whether your charges actually make any sense. As long as they make
you feel good and give you a human target against which to direct your
seething hatred, I guess that's okay....it's what is to be expected for
a person who lives in a country that gets its news from the BBC).
("the Biased British Communist" network)

Usually the more people vilify Bush and Cheney as Hitler, pro-corporate
or whatever, the more unhinged I'm convinced they have become.

Randy

>> One of the few good things about these dark times under Bush is that
people are increasingly willing to speak up and take politics
seriously>>

How is that possible, since all of our civil liberties have been
stripped away by Dick Cheney. What prison cell are you writing this
from? I didn't know they had Internet access in Cheney's Liberal
internment camps?

Whenever you say "Bush's neo-fascism" I just smile the patient smile of
someone dealing with the mentally challenged. I'd ask you to try
thinking things through rationally and try to set hatred aside, but my
guess is that hatred and bitterness just feel good to you, so go ahead
and wallow in them.

As for making me angry, you're not making me angry, you are amusing me
in a pathetic kind of way. I'd love to see the results of a
psychological study of lefties who are upset because their continued
attempts to banish God from society and turn the US into another Cuba
keep getting thwarted at the ballot box. The more unhinged you guys
get, the bigger the Republican majority gets. If you libs were smart,
you'd actually try to persuade people of your opinion without getting
into all the neo-fascism cliches. People might actually listen to you
if you toned down the rhetoric and showed some degree of rationality.
Instead you post your 'manifestos' and people just tune you out as
another of Stalin's "useful idiots".

Randy

Dave,

Sorry, man...we'll get back to sims - I guess he just caught me not in
the mood to tolerate the manifestos.

After today I will no longer reply to John & Marty's manifestos, okay?

Randy

I'm soooooooo sorry. This is all my fault. I was the one that injected
politics into an otherwise polite discussion of the virtual world vs.
reality. We oughtta have a rule like the one at my family's dinner table:
no POLITICS and no RELIGION. Can we all agree on that?

"Dave" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, "Randy Magruder"
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I was looking forward to seeing one of auto sim worlds most
> esteemed denizens contributing some welcome insight on the sim
> world. Instead ...
>
> Oh well.
>
> Back to rec.autos.simulators.OT.political.opinionated.driv el (from
> all sides) ...