- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
this is so dumb, i don't even want to answer, because to ........would lower my standing!
I am here is you want to discuss it.
this is so dumb, i don't even want to answer, because to ........would lower my standing!
We simply see that differently.
its not in any constitution.... state or federal.
the founders do not like democratic forms of government, they are against direct and representative democracy.
I am here is you want to discuss it.
That was my point. The hated democracy and knew of its evils. Yet democrats think democracy is the way to go.
that's not possible because you lack knowledge on a wide variety of things.
Biblical warrior?......:doh...........Jeremiah also called the "Weeping prophet"
i see you will not provide anything to support your case again!
that's not possible because you lack knowledge on a wide variety of things.
Biblical warrior?......:doh...........Jeremiah also called the "Weeping prophet"
democrats love democracy because it is collective by its very nature.
Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed
Democracy is indispensable to socialism-- Vladimir Lenin
the house of representatives which the founders created is democracy, because its rule of the people...its a collective body.
the senate of the founders, is not a democracy, because it was not elected by the people, it was an aristocracy elected by states, its duty is to stop the collective capacity of the people .......from creating any collective laws.
Unfortunately this is no longer the case. One of the Progressives first moves.
you already admitted that this entire obsession with mixed government is to forward a repeal of the 17th Amendment. Contact me when you get five states to ratify that far right wing extremist radical pipe dream.
Now what you just read is called support for my position.
I can see which half of his nickname you clearly identify with. But where does the prophet part come in?
another post which you sought to talk about me........poor rebuttal.
prophet-- a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God
You were finished a week ago when you admitted that all this nonsense was trying to repeal the 17th Amendment while admitting it was a lost cause. Case closed.
no, I explained what mixed government was many times throughout the thread, you asked what would I like, I stated to repeal the 17th, to return our constitution to a mixed constitution which is what the thread mostly dealt with.
a definition of republic was provide to you, and so was one of a democracy, which you never address.
so to finish, you never produced anything, you stated only denials, you made several accusations against me [even trying to assert I was hearing voices], for stating the constitution was created as a mixed constitution, while, James Madison, John Adams, and Patrick Henry say the same thing as I do.
your desperation shines so bright.
re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
re·pub·lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
: a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen
Full Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1]
just because you say its irrelevant does not make it so, the founders state clearly the constitution was created mixed constitution.
based on how officials were elected, and the senate has been changed because of the 17th, making it directly elected by the people, no more is it a aristocracy, meant to check federal power, congress is now a democracy, which is always at war with individual rights.
mixed government is a balance of powers, today it no longer balanced, which is why the government has expanded, and usurped state powers.
so the legal opinions of every generation that has succeeded the founding fathers is somehow irrelevant?
a great evil!Sadly , the entire MOB RULE nonsense is a repeated theme among the far right who have learned to hate the will of the people as a knee jerk reflex action because they know their extremist ideas do not have public support.
Its pretty simple really - the American people do not like them so they have contempt for the American people.