Democracy and Majority Rule

[NYcarbineer]

Let's see because you said I have to post, then I have to? Do I have that right? Let's see with all my posts I should bow to your piss poor attempt to try and force me to reply to you.


You presented 4 or 5 straw man arguments. The same straw man arguments that another poster called you out on a few days ago. It's how you operate on a daily basis. Change the subject, then present a straw man argument, whine a little and then cry that the other posters is either wrong or won't address you.


Tell you what. Hold your breath and I'll post a reply. But you keep holding it until I'm done. Okay?

I didn't post any straw man arguments . You don't know what a strawman argument is.

I posted about segregation, about gun control, about Madison's position on central government being a deterrent to tyranny of the minority.

Whatever you say...whatever you say......

Was segregation in the South enabled by majority rule, or minority rule? Was a weak central federal government the cause of segregation in the various states or not?

Should we limit the power of the federal government to prevent state sanctioned segregation, because that's big government overreach?

 

[beretta304]

What do you believe Walter Williams' main point is?

And in summation,


"Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt."

That doesn't make any sense.

1. Americans think that? Who?

2. 'We'? Who's the 'we' he's talking about?

3. We think passage should be determined by whether it's a good idea or not? And who gets to decide whether it's a good idea? The 'we' as in Walter Williams and people who think like he does? What about people who think Walter Williams' ideas are bad ideas?

I'll tell you what, since your so upset and no answer is to your liking contact Williams and argue with him. Now you want me/us to know what Williams is thinking and why?


You do realize that you can email him?

 

[dblack]

What do you believe Walter Williams' main point is?

And in summation,


"Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt."

That doesn't make any sense.

1. Americans think that? Who?

2. 'We'? Who's the 'we' he's talking about?

3. We think passage should be determined by whether it's a good idea or not? And who gets to decide whether it's a good idea? The 'we' as in Walter Williams and people who think like he does? What about people who think Walter Williams' ideas are bad ideas?

I think the 'we' refers to the popular misconception of many voters. They think that majority will should trump constitutional limits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Far Right equate Democracy with runaway socialism: no wonder people of intelligence laugh at them.

We are a Constitutional Republic that runs generally on democratic principles. Checks and balances till work. Minority protections still are in place.

The Diamond Daves and beretta304s etc are not going to overturn the Will of the People, when DD and B can't even marshal an argument for their position, which is "we lost, wah!"

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

 

[JakeStarkey]

beretta304, who is melting down, made his assertions in his first post, implying somehow our Constitution is defective. He can't support it, but never mind, according to him, the Constitution is defective.

 

[beretta304]

The Far Right equate Democracy with runaway socialism: no wonder people of intelligence laugh at them.

We are a Constitutional Republic that runs generally on democratic principles. Checks and balances till work. Minority protections still are in place.

The Diamond Daves and beretta304s etc are not going to overturn the Will of the People, when DD and B can't even marshal an argument for their position, which is "we lost, wah!"

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

Now it's implied so you admit to lying when you said that I made assertions.

 

[beretta304]

beretta304, who is melting down, made his assertions in his first post, implying somehow our Constitution is defective. He can't support it, but never mind, according to him, the Constitution is defective.

Now Jakey is making up a new lie. Now I said the Constitution is defective.


Pay close attention folks...

WHERE jake did I say or post that?

The only one melting down here is you Jakey over the fact that you can't prove anything and have to keep on making up lies.


You do realize that others can see you LYING, right?


You're a hoot Jake. If another poster did not say something you'll just lie and post that he or she did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have said before your assertion, implied or not, is in your post, beretta304.

There is nothing wrong at all with our constitutional republic that operates on democratic principles.

You can't show anything other than our GOP lost, and guess what, son, that's how American politics plays out ~ win some, lose some.

You are part of the social compact, so you are stuck with it unless you resign your citizenship and leave. Quit being the guy of "wah": very unmanly.

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

Now it's implied so you admit to lying when you said that I made assertions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beretta304, is as needy as a begging baby bunny.

Hop on over and I will give you some lettuce.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I love slapping far left and far right and libertarian loonies around: buncha bunnies.

 

[beretta304]

I have said before your assertion, implied or not, is in your post, beretta304.

There is nothing wrong at all with our constitutional republic that operates on democratic principles.

You can't show anything other than our GOP lost, and guess what, son, that's how American politics plays out ~ win some, lose some.

You are part of the social compact, so you are stuck with it unless you resign your citizenship and leave. Quit being the guy of "wah": very unmanly.

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

Now it's implied so you admit to lying when you said that I made assertions.

For the 6th time, where is the assertion? Where Jake, you dumbass? What post #?

I never met anyone as stupid as you. I point out all your lying and you double down on making yourself look more stupid that I give you credit for.

Where are these assertions Jake?

 

[beretta304]

beretta304, is as needy as a begging baby bunny.

Hop on over and I will give you some lettuce.

Very relevant to the thread. Poor lying, angry little Jake. He doesn't know what lie to spew next. :


The only one hopping is you...back to this thread 15 times and never once being able to prove what you claim.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Far Right equate Democracy with runaway socialism: no wonder people of intelligence laugh at them.

We are a Constitutional Republic that runs generally on democratic principles. Checks and balances till work. Minority protections still are in place.

The Diamond Daves and beretta304s etc are not going to overturn the Will of the People, when DD and B can't even marshal an argument for their position, which is "we lost, wah!"

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

1) No we don't.. we have constitutional law that is supposed to prevent things even if the will of the people wants it...
2) No... it is supposed to.. .it has been thwarted continually... many things done OUTSIDE of the limited powers the government is granted
3) No, they do not when thwarted
4) Never said it did.. pointed out your blatant double talk
5) You mentioned it, so to you it evidently did matter... you tried to assert in a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth, as you have continually done

 

[beretta304]

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

1) No we don't.. we have constitutional law that is supposed to prevent things even if the will of the people wants it...
2) No... it is supposed to.. .it has been thwarted continually... many things done OUTSIDE of the limited powers the government is granted
3) No, they do not when thwarted
4) Never said it did.. pointed out your blatant double talk
5) You mentioned it, so to you it evidently did matter... you tried to assert in a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth, as you have continually done

He's been lying all day and as you said putting words into others mouths which is exactly why I refuse to give his frustrated lying ass a serious response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And in summation,


"Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt."

That doesn't make any sense.

1. Americans think that? Who?

2. 'We'? Who's the 'we' he's talking about?

3. We think passage should be determined by whether it's a good idea or not? And who gets to decide whether it's a good idea? The 'we' as in Walter Williams and people who think like he does? What about people who think Walter Williams' ideas are bad ideas?

I'll tell you what, since your so upset and no answer is to your liking contact Williams and argue with him. Now you want me/us to know what Williams is thinking and why?


You do realize that you can email him?

I asked YOU what his point was, and you didn't know. You just quoted him. I can read. What his point is supposed to be is something else.

You tell us. What was his point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Walter Williams believes in a states right to nullify federal laws;

clearly HE doesn't understand what the Constitution says and means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1) We don't have a will of the people government, AKA a true democracy...
2) Our constitution is supposed to protect against pure popular will and the tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution have been sidestepped and thwarted more and more
4) In one breath you talk about minority protection then you immediately follow with a statement about 'not overturning the will of the people'... you are indeed an idiot
5) Funny, I do not have any posts about 'we lost'... mainly because I voted for neither of the 2 major parties except for the congressional seat for my district...

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

1) No we don't.. we have constitutional law that is supposed to prevent things even if the will of the people wants it...
2) No... it is supposed to.. .it has been thwarted continually... many things done OUTSIDE of the limited powers the government is granted
3) No, they do not when thwarted
4) Never said it did.. pointed out your blatant double talk
5) You mentioned it, so to you it evidently did matter... you tried to assert in a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth, as you have continually done

1) Yes, we do, and your crying does not changing anything
2) You are not the determiner of the true scope of the Constitution
3) The Checks and Balances are not thwarted: that is merely contention that they are
4) You are merely "wah'ing" because we lost
5) this was your point, and it doesn't matter

 

[JakeStarkey]

The larger you type the more you melt down, son.

Your OP has been fail from your first post. Tis what tis.

Beretta started off with a silly implied assertion and has denied it ever since, so he can be ignored as a loser.

1) We do have a Will of the People in our magistrates and elected legislatures, done by democratic principles within a constitutional republican frame
2) Our constitution does protect against true popular will and tyranny of the majority
3) The checks and balances in the constitution work just fine
4) Minority protection does not mean protecting whichever party loses an election: you make my GOP a party of "wah"
5) This point doesn't matter

1) No we don't.. we have constitutional law that is supposed to prevent things even if the will of the people wants it...
2) No... it is supposed to.. .it has been thwarted continually... many things done OUTSIDE of the limited powers the government is granted
3) No, they do not when thwarted
4) Never said it did.. pointed out your blatant double talk
5) You mentioned it, so to you it evidently did matter... you tried to assert in a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth, as you have continually done

He's been lying all day and as you said putting words into others mouths which is exactly why I refuse to give his frustrated lying ass a serious response.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Walter Williams' comments are simply irrelevant.

He has been wrong for 25 years.

 

[bripat9643]

Governments are of the people.

Meaningless twaddle.

If governments can't be oppressed why are conservatives constantly harping on 'state's rights'?

The people in the states are oppressed, not the governments.