Beeblebrox wrote:
Krem wrote:
I would answer yes to the first, and no to the second. But notice, I do not call people who argue for higher taxes or for more civil rights legislation "Trotskyists" or "feminazis". And don't expect me to call people who want to impeach judges who make decisions they do not like "jihadists" either.
I guess phrases like "tyranny of the majority" are reserved for liberal policies then? Maybe you should elaborate on when it's okay to call a democratic decision "tyranny" and when it isn't. For example, is it only okay for you to do it or can any conservative do it too?
"Tyranny of the majority" means a majority passing policies that impede on the individual liberties of the minority. Nothing to do with them being liberal or conservative policies. In any case, it's a term with a specific meaning in politics, unlike your "andi-judicial jihad" rhetoric that is designed to appeal to emotion rather than to reason.
Beeblebrox wrote:
And you didn't answer the question. Why do you defend one issue (mass impeachment) as "well within their rights" and then protest the other (civil rights, taxes) when you claim to "definitely oppose" both?
I defend their right to pursue that path under the COnstitution, while at the same time opposing the path. It's not that hard of a concept. Just because I don't call them jihadists does not mean I like that policy.
Beeblebrox wrote:
[
[quote]That's part of your problem. You expect people with positions that are very different from yours to have the same standards and values as you do.
No, I expect people who claim to have principles and claim to not be favor either side to apply that to policy whether it's from liberals or conservatives.[/quote]
Like I told you before, if you expect something of these hypothetical people, then you should try and understand their position, and not apply your standards of "equal" treatment to them. As for me, I would like you to recall when was the last time I called any Democrat a jihadist or a Stalinist.
Beeblebrox wrote:
And in other news, this is from the National Journal via Andrew Sullivan's site. It spells out the agenda of that meeting where Viera quoted Stalin:
According to [organizer, Don] Feder, the manifesto will call for a plan to begin impeachment proceedings against federal judges; remove judicial jurisdiction over issues key to religious conservatives, including marriage and the separation of church and state; limit courts' jurisdiction over the establishment clause of the Constitution, which has been used to enforce the firewall between religion and government; initiate a process for defunding courts that defy these new rules and continue to overstep their authority and eliminate the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.
The manifesto is based in part on legislation introduced early last month by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., known as the "Constitution Restoration Act." Their bill would limit federal courts' jurisdiction and would enshrine a recognition of God in federal law -- a provision the bill would make nonreviewable.
I very much doubnt the organizer said all that, but assuming that what's laid out is the actual policy, I'm not too worried. This has no chance in hell of passing.
Beeblebrox wrote:
You may call it democracy, but everything they're doing is designed to limit your rights to do anything about what they're doing. They may impliment it by democracy, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. And if you think that's so hard to imagine, then just remember how you characterize civil rights legislation as supposedly undemocratic, and that's been policy for decades.
I have NEVER characterized civil rights legislation as "undemocratic". What I said was that it impedes on individual civil liberties. These are two very different things, and if you have trouble distinguishing them, I doubt you and I have much to talk about.
