42% Of Americans Believe That Obama Has Expanded His Power Too Much

[Mac1958]

Parse definitions all you want. Deflection.

As I said, you don't like my point because you don't like admitting that you want more centralized authority over your life and the lives of others.

Deflect all you want.

There is no 'parse'. Democracy is the antonym of authoritarianism. They are exact polar opposites.

And the only deflection is by you. You whiffed on this one...man up.

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac?

Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

You can really can't get past the fact that not everyone is a partisan ideologue like you. Love Bush? What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Go ahead. I'll wait. You can't stand the fact that I think for myself, you'd rather I were an obedient little partisan ideologue like you. Too bad.

So you won't admit that you don't like my point because you don't like admitting that you want more centralized authority over your life and the lives of others. You must want LESS government authority over our lives, huh? You people appear to be incapable of being intellectually honest.

So since you refuse to answer that one, let's try this one: What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Come on. Man up. For a change. Answer the question. I suspect you'll just deflect. Again.

.

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have to ask this.

If the President is within his discretion to step up and "make things happen" when Congress fails to do "their job" , does that also mean states should "step up" and secure the border when the federal government "fails to do its job?"

I'm just curious.

 

[Mac1958]

I have to ask this.

If the President is within his discretion to step up and "make things happen" when Congress fails to do "their job" , does that also mean states should "step up" and secure the border when the federal government "fails to do its job?"

I'm just curious.

I think they can, can't they?

No doubt they'd have to pay for it, of course.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe not, but congress has an obligation to do its Consitutional job. Shutting down government, blocking judicial appointments, refusing to pass a budget and blocking all legislation is not doing your job

If the president fails in his duties, shutting government down is an option that might be considered as responsible. If the president insists on nominating poor choices, Congress should block them. If the budget presented in unreasonable, it should fail to pass. Congress has never blocked all legislation, that is simply another liberal lie.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have to ask this.

If the President is within his discretion to step up and "make things happen" when Congress fails to do "their job" , does that also mean states should "step up" and secure the border when the federal government "fails to do its job?"

I'm just curious.

No doubt they'd have to pay for it, of course.

The reason I ask is I have NO doubt that the same fools who say Obama should do Congress's job if Congress won't are the same fools who are against the states securing their own borders. In fact I'm 100% sure that is the case.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Maybe not, but congress has an obligation to do its Consitutional job. Shutting down government, blocking judicial appointments, refusing to pass a budget and blocking all legislation is not doing your job

If the president fails in his duties, shutting government down is an option that might be considered as responsible. If the president insists on nominating poor choices, Congress should block them. If the budget presented in unreasonable, it should fail to pass. Congress has never blocked all legislation, that is simply another liberal lie.

I

Yes, this seems to be a case of "wah Congress isn't doing their job when they won't let Obama have his way"

This is why I had hoped Hillary would have been the Dem candidate in '08. the Clintons have their problems , but one thing they know how to do is compromise to stay in power. This bozo has NO interest in compromise ,and anyone who asks him to is a racist.

 

[saveliberty]

58% were not allowed to answer the poll by executive order...

 

[Bfgrn]

There is no 'parse'. Democracy is the antonym of authoritarianism. They are exact polar opposites.

And the only deflection is by you. You whiffed on this one...man up.

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac?

Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

You can really can't get past the fact that not everyone is a partisan ideologue like you. Love Bush? What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Go ahead. I'll wait. You can't stand the fact that I think for myself, you'd rather I were an obedient little partisan ideologue like you. Too bad.

So you won't admit that you don't like my point because you don't like admitting that you want more centralized authority over your life and the lives of others. You must want LESS government authority over our lives, huh? You people appear to be incapable of being intellectually honest.

So since you refuse to answer that one, let's try this one: What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Come on. Man up. For a change. Answer the question. I suspect you'll just deflect. Again.

.

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

 

[Mac1958]

You can really can't get past the fact that not everyone is a partisan ideologue like you. Love Bush? What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Go ahead. I'll wait. You can't stand the fact that I think for myself, you'd rather I were an obedient little partisan ideologue like you. Too bad.

So you won't admit that you don't like my point because you don't like admitting that you want more centralized authority over your life and the lives of others. You must want LESS government authority over our lives, huh? You people appear to be incapable of being intellectually honest.

So since you refuse to answer that one, let's try this one: What are my often-cited opinions on foreign policy, war, health care, gay rights, unions, abortion and personal income taxation?

Come on. Man up. For a change. Answer the question. I suspect you'll just deflect. Again.

.

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

 

[occupied]

Maybe not, but congress has an obligation to do its Consitutional job. Shutting down government, blocking judicial appointments, refusing to pass a budget and blocking all legislation is not doing your job

If the president fails in his duties, shutting government down is an option that might be considered as responsible. If the president insists on nominating poor choices, Congress should block them. If the budget presented in unreasonable, it should fail to pass. Congress has never blocked all legislation, that is simply another liberal lie.

I

Yes, this seems to be a case of "wah Congress isn't doing their job when they won't let Obama have his way"

This is why I had hoped Hillary would have been the Dem candidate in '08. the Clintons have their problems , but one thing they know how to do is compromise to stay in power. This bozo has NO interest in compromise ,and anyone who asks him to is a racist.

Republicans propose the outlandishly impossible as if it were common sense (balance the budget this term, stop the flow of illegal immigrants, kill the EPA etc) and then bitch that they are not getting what they want. It's childish and destructive of the American political process. If republicans had reasonable expectations based on the reality of things then they would get more of what they want but their ideological freakouts makes it clear that they are not after compromise. Their language so is full of absolute all of noting rhetoric that it is clear that compromise is out of the question. They even frequently say so in no uncertain terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

America flatly does not want the far right reactionary agenda.

Because that is the case, the far right cannot carry its agenda in Congress.

When the keep the House and probably retake the Senate, the GOP will have a final chance to govern responsibility.

If it does not, the election of 2016 will be the arrival of their winter in exile for a long, long time.

 

[HenryBHough]

Fortunately state level Republican organizations have chosen candidates, in many cases, that seem capable of winning. At the national level it's a virtual certainty that Closetcrats (yes, that's you, jammie boy) will choose yet another Democrat-lite and will lose. With any luck real Republicans will keep the senate and render that figurehead president just that. A figurehead.

 

[Bfgrn]

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and change the subject. We are talking about what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is. and what your views are on abortion, taxes etc.
You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

Holy fuck, you really are an authoritarian. I MUST adhere to YOUR definition. I am not allowed to have my own definition of freedom, liberty and justice. Tell me Mac, HOW does more democracy = more government authority over people's lives? More democracy means more authority over YOUR OWN life. You have MORE say in how government is run, not less. How is that a bad thing Mac? You prefer to defer authority to someone else, How is THAT freedom MAC?????

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

YOU are the only one playing games here Mac. You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and get me to change the subject to what your views are on abortion, taxes etc. That is not the subject. This is not about you Mac.

You just denied you equate democracy with authoritarianism, THE you do it AGAIN. You continue to equate democracy with authoritarianism.

You clearly have a twisted and totally perverse understanding of what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is.

You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

democracy
noun
government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation <under our democracy the people have some control over their lives by being able to select their own political leaders>

Synonyms republic, self-government, self-rule

Related Words pure democracy; home rule, self-determination; autonomy, sovereignty (also sovranty)

Near Antonyms despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyranny

 

[Mac1958]

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and change the subject. We are talking about what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is. and what your views are on abortion, taxes etc.
You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

You won't answer questions. You keep deflecting. You keep tossing out straw men.

I'm done here.

This is why I don't burn much time with partisan ideologues.

.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

YOU are the only one playing games here Mac. You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and get me to change the subject to what your views are on abortion, taxes etc. That is not the subject. This is not about you Mac.

You just denied you equate democracy with authoritarianism, THE you do it AGAIN. You continue to equate democracy with authoritarianism.

You clearly have a twisted and totally perverse understanding of what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is.

You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

democracy
noun
government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation <under our democracy the people have some control over their lives by being able to select their own political leaders>

Synonyms republic, self-government, self-rule

Related Words pure democracy; home rule, self-determination; autonomy, sovereignty (also sovranty)

Near Antonyms despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyranny

Yes, I think that "Mac doesn't know what democracy is" will be a perfectly absurd place to leave this conversation.

A delightfully silly sentence to remind me why I know better than to get into extended conversations with partisan ideologues.

My bad. My fault.



.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a list of the powers of the Presidency that have been supposedly expanded under Obama.

Bump?

Please be specific.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and change the subject. We are talking about what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is. and what your views are on abortion, taxes etc.
You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

I am not going to answer for perfectly good reasons.

A) What your beliefs are on abortion, taxes etc is non sequitur...TOTALLY irrelevant.

B) THAT is not the topic here Mac. You equated authoritarianism with democracy. EXPLAIN?

YOU said the following:

But now I finally understand what conservatives MEAN by less government. No wonder you folks love Bush 'the decider' and why you folks are so enamored with Putin. Less government for conservatives mean ONE. A dictator. Democracy allows too many citizens to participate in how their country is run. We can let any of the rabble have a say, right Mac? Now I see why you rarely say anything. I have swiftly removed the veneer that you are a moderate.

YOU ran with the lie that I'm a conservative. Those are YOUR words. I responded by asking you to prove YOUR OWN WORDS, and you call my request a "non sequitur". As I said, I don't think you're capable of being honest.

And I did not equate authoritarianism with democracy. YOU did. If you want to pretend that I claimed you want America to be North Korea, run with it. Your call, you're going to make stuff up anyway.

Please find a more suitable person for your games, an equally dishonest counterpart, a right wing partisan ideologue. People like you deserve each other.

.

WHAT???


1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Oh, so that's what that was about. I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy.

I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People.

I don't care if you admit it or not. I don't care if you play games or not. I can't get you to answer questions, which is the standard experience I have with hardcore partisan ideologues.

I believe you do not want North Korea, or any other type of totalitarian regime, nor have I ever said so.

See, I'm more than willing to respond with direct answers. I know you are not willing to provide the same courtesy, so I will not ask you to.

Your games are tedious. Why you want to play them with me is a mystery. Well, kind of. The REAL enemy of a partisan ideologue isn't a partisan ideologue on the other side; it's someone who thinks for themselves.

Hey, I think I'll put that one on my sig for a while!

YOU are the only one playing games here Mac. You are trying very hard to derail this discussion and get me to change the subject to what your views are on abortion, taxes etc. That is not the subject. This is not about you Mac.

You just denied you equate democracy with authoritarianism, THE you do it AGAIN. You continue to equate democracy with authoritarianism.

You clearly have a twisted and totally perverse understanding of what a democracy is and what authoritarianism is.

You clearly don't understand what a democracy is.

democracy
noun
government in which the supreme power is held by the people and used by them directly or indirectly through representation <under our democracy the people have some control over their lives by being able to select their own political leaders>

Synonyms republic, self-government, self-rule

Related Words pure democracy; home rule, self-determination; autonomy, sovereignty (also sovranty)

Near Antonyms despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyranny

Yes, I think that "Mac doesn't know what democracy is" will be a perfectly absurd place to leave this conversation.

A delightfully silly sentence to remind me why I know better than to get into extended conversations with partisan ideologues.

My bad. My fault.



.

Really Mac, you know what democracy is?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st post #21: Mac said: "And for those who want a Euro-social democracy with a far stronger, authoritarian central bureaucracy, holy crap, there's still plenty of room."

Reply from Bfgrn #23: "Are you saying a Euro-social democracy and an authoritarian central bureaucracy are the same thing?"

Reply from Mac post #24: "Yes. I'm sure that exceptions could exist, but yes"

Mac said: "In a social democracy, the central bureaucracy has more authority, more control, more influence"

Mac said: "In a social democracy, such as Sweden or France, the central government is more Authoritarian"

Mac said: "I have made my point clearly. You don't like my point because you don't like admitting that you want more centralized authority over your life and the lives of others."

Mac said: "I'll make this as clear and simple as I can:

I believe you want a democracy. I believe you want a more authoritarian central bureaucracy. MORE authoritarian. CLOSER to authoritarian. You love you some gubmit, because you have this romantic notion, as most leftists do, of a caring, protecting, benevolent federal bureaucracy, lovingly elected by We The People."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think your problem may be that you don't know the meaning of the term ANTONYM

Democracy

antonym: authoritarianism

 

[Mac1958]

Fortunately state level Republican organizations have chosen candidates, in many cases, that seem capable of winning. At the national level it's a virtual certainty that Closetcrats (yes, that's you, jammie boy) will choose yet another Democrat-lite and will lose. With any luck real Republicans will keep the senate and render that figurehead president just that. A figurehead.

The potential problem the GOP faces here is the "be careful what you wish for" conundrum.

A party always wants to win, sure, but the GOP (if they control the Senate) has to be more than the opposition party, or Obama and the Democrats will be able to leverage their inaction against them. At some point the Republicans need to start providing a clear and positive message, and they'd have two years to do it.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Bush happily expanded powers as well. Look at his signing statements.

Obama has been happily acting like his little brother.

The executive needs to reined in

President Bush used his executive powers to appoint justices during a Congressional recess, while President Obama used executive powers to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants. Only one is specifically allowed under the United States Constitution.

Can you cite examples of where President Bush used his executive powers to establish legislative law by going around Congress?