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

[NYcarbineer]

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

of course American was a far better, stronger, and right track nation when we had love rather than abortion and traditional marriage rather than family destruction.

What a crime it would be if some states had the freedom to be superior and if the rest of us could move there rather than being forced under the libcommie central govt.

Abortion was legal in the American colonies, at least with the Protestants.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

of course American was a far better, stronger, and right track nation when we had love rather than abortion and traditional marriage rather than family destruction.

What a crime it would be if some states had the freedom to be superior and if the rest of us could move there rather than being forced under the libcommie central govt.

Abortion was legal in the American colonies, at least with the Protestants.

the modern libcommie model is to have sex with strangers and kill the child that results. Before, the Republican model was to love the person you had sex with, form a family, and love the child that resulted.

Which is better?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, the only solution to America is what it says in my signature

what does it say???

 

[Dante]

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

of course American was a far better, stronger, and right track nation when we had love rather than abortion and traditional marriage rather than family destruction.

What a crime it would be if some states had the freedom to be superior and if the rest of us could move there rather than being forced under the libcommie central govt.

Abortion was legal in the American colonies, at least with the Protestants.

the modern libcommie model is to have sex with strangers and kill the child that results. Before, the Republican model was to love the person you had sex with, form a family, and love the child that resulted.

Which is better?

I detest the smell of a fetus

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

of course American was a far better, stronger, and right track nation when we had love rather than abortion and traditional marriage rather than family destruction.

What a crime it would be if some states had the freedom to be superior and if the rest of us could move there rather than being forced under the libcommie central govt.

Abortion was legal in the American colonies, at least with the Protestants.

the modern libcommie model is to have sex with strangers and kill the child that results. Before, the Republican model was to love the person you had sex with, form a family, and love the child that resulted.

Which is better?

I detest the smell of a fetus

the modern libcommie model is to have sex with strangers and kill the child that results. Before, the Republican model was to love the person you had sex with, form a family, and love the child that resulted.

Which is better?

 

[regent]

Why were coat hangers invented?
The problem with the coat hanger was so many women died.
Be a shame to go back to those days.

 

[Dante]

hmmm difficult choice

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why were coat hangers invented?
The problem with the coat hanger was so many women died.
Be a shame to go back to those days.

yes better to live in a loveless hiphop culture wherein 100's of family free young men are shot to death every weeekend, the prisons are full, single mothers live in poverty, and you cant look anyone in the eye in public. Welcome to liberalism.

 

[Dante]

EB is such a moron and a bore

 

[regent]

Why were coat hangers invented?
The problem with the coat hanger was so many women died.
Be a shame to go back to those days.

yes better to live in a loveless hiphop culture wherein 100's of family free young men are shot to death every weeekend, the prisons are full, single mothers live in poverty, and you cant look anyone in the eye in public. Welcome to liberalism.

All because of a lousy coat hanger?

 

[Ame®icano]

Can't agree with this.

.

dear, you forgot to say exactly what your disagreement is????

I did not. I highlighted what I disagree with.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why were coat hangers invented?
The problem with the coat hanger was so many women died.
Be a shame to go back to those days.

yes better to live in a loveless hiphop culture wherein 100's of family free young men are shot to death every weeekend, the prisons are full, single mothers live in poverty, and you cant look anyone in the eye in public. Welcome to liberalism.

Hey, liberalism is "edgy".

 

[eagle1462010]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

 

[Dante]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

 

[eagle1462010]

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

1. It has mandatory spending in the law, so it is a spending bill.

2. It's not completely a partisan issue.........like I hate Obama so we will not support it..............It's about the flaws in it, and the differences that where NOT SETTLED in the passage by a TEMPORARY SUPER MAJORITY............which is spot on with the current topic. It is how it would go in a Direct Democracy.

Had they compromised fully instead of the photo op sessions we might have ended with a better plan. Many of the ideas from the GOP side weren't bad options..........Increasing the High Risk pools wasn't a bad idea. Tort reform wasn't a bad idea. Allowing businesses to combine with other businesses would have improved negotiation of prices for all the companies.

It was a my way or the highway bill. And costs have gone up for everyone, especially businesses as a result.

Given that it should have never been called the AFFORDABLE................

 

[eagle1462010]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

 

[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

1. It has mandatory spending in the law, so it is a spending bill.

2. It's not completely a partisan issue.........like I hate Obama so we will not support it..............It's about the flaws in it, and the differences that where NOT SETTLED in the passage by a TEMPORARY SUPER MAJORITY............which is spot on with the current topic. It is how it would go in a Direct Democracy.

Had they compromised fully instead of the photo op sessions we might have ended with a better plan. Many of the ideas from the GOP side weren't bad options..........Increasing the High Risk pools wasn't a bad idea. Tort reform wasn't a bad idea. Allowing businesses to combine with other businesses would have improved negotiation of prices for all the companies.

It was a my way or the highway bill. And costs have gone up for everyone, especially businesses as a result.

Given that it should have never been called the AFFORDABLE................

there you go again with 'direct democracy'

 

[Dante]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

 

[eagle1462010]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

 

[Dante]

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

the will of everyone? in a democracy?

I have no idea what you talking about now as it bears little resemblance to what we started discussing.

btw, the FRAMERS didn't want to stop a 'TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY' they wanted to prevent one.