America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[nodoginnafight]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

nobody said they were, but, today many are taking for granted that democracy is smart despite the evidence that people are stupid.

This is why you have liberals upset that we don't always support democratic elections, like in Egypt.

Yes, many people here ARE saying that they are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[Dante]

If your read what others have McConnell saying he is planning to obstruct Obama before the PPACA is even on the table -- it was about keeping a hugely popular President from getting any more popular and winning hearts and minds of Americans with anything good. This is why Republicans ended up against what they were for before.

Brilliant strategy. I admire McConnell's skills. Yet I do not think most who defend him or dislike Democrats like looking at the facts - be that what they are.

Dainty, I strongly urge you and your party to loudly proclaim your support of Fascistcare, that you promoted Fascistcare from the start, and that the further election of democrats will increase the scope of Fascistcare and programs like Fascistcare into the lives of Americans; with the same sort of impact on jobs and personal finances.

It's a winning strategy - Warren should campaign on it! "Fascistcare, now and forever!"

go back to misrepresenting where the term 'republic' comes from and what it actually means

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler

those spies weren't liberals. They were spies

the KGB code name for the Rosenbergs was "Liberal". Oleg Klugian said he looked among the liberals when he needed new spies. Read Useful Idiots if you want the complete list of all the lib commies who spied for Stalin and Hitler.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

nobody said they were, but, today many are taking for granted that democracy is smart despite the evidence that people are stupid.

This is why you have liberals upset that we don't always support democratic elections, like in Egypt.

Yes, many people here ARE saying that they are mutually exclusive terms.

then quote them

 

[Dante]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

nobody said they were, but, today many are taking for granted that democracy is smart despite the evidence that people are stupid.

This is why you have liberals upset that we don't always support democratic elections, like in Egypt.

frig Egyptian democracy. It was a joke from the start

 

[Dante]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler

those spies weren't liberals. They were spies

the KGB code name for the Rosenbergs was "Liberal". Oleg Klugian said he looked among the liberals when he needed new spies. Read Useful Idiots if you want the complete list of all the lib commies who spied for Stalin and Hitler.

yeah and Reagan was to the left of Cruz, so that makes Reagan a liberal.

ok

 

[peach174]

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

frig Egyptian democracy. It was a joke from the start

by what rational standard is American democracy not a joke too?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

and without the huge huge lies Obama used to pass it, it never would have seen the light of day. It seems impeachable to me.

 

[nodoginnafight]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

nobody said they were, but, today many are taking for granted that democracy is smart despite the evidence that people are stupid.

This is why you have liberals upset that we don't always support democratic elections, like in Egypt.

Yes, many people here ARE saying that they are mutually exclusive terms.

then quote them

Look at the freakin' HEADLINE.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler

those spies weren't liberals. They were spies

the KGB code name for the Rosenbergs was "Liberal". Oleg Klugian said he looked among the liberals when he needed new spies. Read Useful Idiots if you want the complete list of all the lib commies who spied for Stalin and Hitler.

yeah and Reagan was to the left of Cruz, so that makes Reagan a liberal.

ok

who said that??? Nice try at changing the subject

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Look at the freakin' HEADLINE.

does its author claim there is no democracy in America??

 

[peach174]

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

and without the huge huge lies Obama used to pass it, it never would have seen the light of day. It seems impeachable to me.

We will see what the Supreme Court says in June of next year.
It could still be doomed.

 

[Dante]

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

The reason the bill passed with only one party had to do with the huge popularity of the President and the GOP Senate leader's decision to lay in place a scorched earth policy on passing bills that would flatter the popular President and his party. I did not make this up. It comes out of the GOP Senate leader himself: Mitch McConnell. This you can chose to gloss over or ignore, but it makes you look foolish and far less intelligent than you may be

 

[peach174]

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

The reason the bill passed with only one party had to do with the huge popularity of the President and the GOP Senate leader's decision to lay in place a scorched earth policy on passing bills that would flatter the popular President and his party. I did not make this up. It comes out of the GOP Senate leader himself: Mitch McConnell. This you can chose to gloss over or ignore, but it makes you look foolish and far less intelligent than you may be

The people still do not like this bill, you can also chose to ignore this fact too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We will see what the Supreme Court says in June of next year.
It could still be doomed.

I don't know if that will be a fatal blow but probably since a Republican Congress will have to repeal it or fix it if the states using the national exchange cant offer subsidies.
Oddly, Republicans are still too weak to offer capitalistic fixes and revisions it seems.

 

[francoHFW]

Uncensored2008 dcraelin

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

"The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages)" - wikipedia entry

the dead giveaway is that when the framers gave us a republic, the French were still a monarchy.

• French First Republic (1792–1804)

Jeebus, you think French philosophers didn't consider a republic and hadn't heard of hundreds of other historical republic; in fact, it was a major consideration of the French Enlightenment, the inspiration of many of our founders. DUH

 

[dcraelin]

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

False, and laughably ignorant.

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

enough already with your pathetic gallery!

well I think from some of your posts that your agree with the main point in the gallery...but otheres need to see it yet

 

[dcraelin]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

I dont think making speech fairer means censorship, tho it is an area to be careful in, its is the broadcast of speech that is the problem....the money that buys broadcasting of speech when the average joe cant buy the same amount

The average Joe should be able to speak louder by convincing more voices to join in unison.

Americans need to stop equating broadcasted speech with truth and facts

both points are true, but even points made by those in unison get drwoned out by the voiced of crooks.

 

[dcraelin]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing