Re: The Devil On JOA!?

John Richards wrote:

> "kstahl" <ktsahl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:_4SdnZbIyswxDvbfRVn-1Q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> John Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Liberals want to make any anti-liberal talk a "hate" crime,
>>> because they can't stand anyone who believes differently than they do.
>>> If they had their way, only politically correct thoughts would be 
>>> allowed.
>>>
>>
>> So truth is to be sacrificed for the sake of convenience and 
> 
> 
> Which particular "truth"? The Liberal or Conservative slant of it?

The original topic was religion. I claim that xtianity was fallacious 
and there are thousands of sources that can be used to sup****t that 
claim. Many of them based on real science, real history and real 
archeology. The bible is based on none of that.

> 
> 
>> sock-puppetry? Of course that was what the inquisition was about - 
>> conservatives killing liberals because the liberals departed from the 
>> proscribed "truth" of the conservatives. 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how something that happened in a much different time
> and place and cir***stances has any bearing on today's events.
> Don't you have any more recent analogies?
> 
Is burning Jews because they didn't conform to the German view of what 
it meant to be a human recent enough? How about ethnic cleansing in 
Serbo-Croatia where women were raped because they were not the right 
race. How about ethnic cleansing in the Sudan where people were kill 
because they were not part of the majority ethnic group? How about the 
Hutu's and Tutsi's in Burundi. In all cases the strong and powerful 
exercised their power by trying to eliminate those that were not part of 
the strong and powerful so that they could never have a chance of 
gaining a leader****p role. What does it take to be recent enough to suit 
you?

>>  I bet it makes you feel real brave to follow in that tradition. If 
>> conservatives stop attacking liberals then perhaps we would return the 
>> favor.
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "attacking", physically or verbally?
> 
Verbally at a minimum. The threat of physical violence loops as long as 
people like Ann Coulter advocate killing liberals because they are
liberals.

> At least Conservatives don't use the judiciary to create new laws, 
> something our Constitution reserved to the legislature.
> 

That is a phony argument created by Conservatives. Judges interpret laws 
  according to their understanding regardless of politics. It 
conservatives who want to laws to be interpreted in ways that are 
favorable to the conservative viewpoint and whereever possible they want 
to create laws that will propagate conservative nonsense in ways that 
fly against the intent of the U.S. Constitituon.

Recent case is the Shaivo matter. Conservatives were claiming foul when 
both conservative and liberal judges interpreted the laws fairly and 
based on the actual laws themselves while conservatives felt that the 
religious viewpoint should have outweighed the actual laws.

There has never been a new law created by the judiciary. The U.S. 
Constitution simply does not allow that. Laws are passed by congress and 
signed by the president. However, laws must pass the litmus test of the 
Constitution and where they violate the spirit and intent of the 
constitution the laws are declared void. But to claim that the judiciary 
creates new laws is simply silly.