Americans have had over 200 years to prove democracy can work, but...

[BackAgain]

You're deflection, if anything, only highlights how badly you're being schooled.

I accept your unqualified surrender.

You know you came to the conversation empty handed. We all do.

 

[zaangalewa]

In that particular sentence you only needed "were," dumbass.

It's enough now. Your intellectual level of a snail who tries to hunt tigers is not satisfying.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes. God says that you’re a dope.

This god did not say to you, atheist and blasphemer.

I believe that. God knows!

Again: God likes to speak with you. Do it. Speak with him.

 

[BackAgain]

This god did not say to you, atheist and blasphemer.

You are now blaspheming! How dare you deny the quoted word of God? You may be seeing a mighty smite heading your way very very soon.

Again: God likes to speak with you. Do it. Speak with him.

Unlike you, you heathen, when God speaks, I don’t talk back.

Give listening a try. It’s approved of by God, Himself.

 

[zaangalewa]

You are now blaspheming! How dare you deny the quoted word of God? You may be seeing a mighty smite heading your way very very soon.

Unlike you, you heathen, when God speaks, I don’t talk back.

Give listening a try. It’s approved of by God, Himself.

What exactly did you not understand from the words which I said to you here, atheist and blasphemer?


Here some words from my grandfather David for you:
-----
To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have those who work evil no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God? There they are, in great terror, where there is no terror! For God scatters the bones of him who encamps against you; you put them to shame, for God has rejected them. Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When God restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.
-----

-----

 

[zaangalewa]

That sentence means you need to get your goofy foreign ass back to EFL class.

So "American" is your word for a closed anti-Christian system of hate.

 

[zaangalewa]

In that particular sentence you only needed "were," dumbass.

¿were? - I confused a plural form with a singular form? In this case - if so - your "idiot" is accepted .. oh no - you said "dumbass" ...one moment ... "Trottel" ... if "dumbass" really means "Trottel" then this is also accepted.

... but again one moment please ...

Why do you say "you were" and not "you was"? ... and you don't really do so, if I see it the right way ... even in poems you use "you was". ...

I guess the background is that you use the word "you" sometimes in a plural form and sometimes in a singular form. "You" Americans => you were. "You" Peter => you was. Am I right?

Or is it really always only "you were" and everyone who uses "you was" is a bad English speaker? I anyway never speak English. And you was understanding what I said. If I would say "you were understanding" then I would speak to you in an abstrahotic plural form - what would not make a big sense - except you are a kind of collective Borg entity. But perhaps you are.

...

Okay ... now I got it. .. The correct form is "you were" ... Sorry. You are right. I'm a dumbass who speaks a bad English - which he anyway never speaks. It makes more sense to say "you is" and "you was" in case of a single person - but you don't do so. You prefer on a mysterious reason to use "you are" and "you were". "Du sind" and "Du waren" are in the German language impossible constructs because "du" (spoken "dou", meaning "you") is always only used in singular.

 

[Curried Goats]

I accept your unqualified surrender.

You know you came to the conversation empty handed. We all do.

Still on objective statement. You continue to fail.

 

[Unkotare]

So "American" is your word for

Is my word for my nationality.

 

[Unkotare]

¿were? - I confused a plural form with a singular form? In this case - if so - your "idiot" is accepted .. oh no - you said "dumbass" ...one moment ... "Trottel" ... if "dumbass" really means "Trottel" then this is also accepted.

... but again one moment please ...

Why do you say "you were" and not "you was"? ... and you don't really do so, if I see it the right way ... even in poems you use "you was". ...

I guess the background is that you use the word "you" sometimes in a plural form and sometimes in a singular form. "You" Americans => you were. "You" Peter => you was. Am I right?

Or is it really always only "you were" and everyone who uses "you was" is a bad English speaker? I anyway never speak English. And you was understanding what I said. If I would say "you were understanding" then I would speak to you in an abstrahotic plural form - what would not make a big sense - except you are a kind of collective Borg entity. But perhaps you are.

...

Okay ... now I got it. .. The correct form is "you were" ... Sorry. You are right. I'm a dumbass who speaks a bad English - which he anyway never speaks. It makes more sense to say "you is" and "you was" in case of a single person - but you don't do so. You prefer on a mysterious reason to use "you are" and "you were". "Du sind" and "Du waren" are in the German language impossible constructs because "du" (spoken "dou", meaning "you") is always only used in singular.

Idiot ^^^^^

 

[The Duke]

Diversity is not the same as divisiveness.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[The Duke]

Electing Means Giving Up Your Natural Right to Vote on the Issues

The ruling class's Constitution established a republic, which is an omnipotent oligarchy of pre-owned politicians and is the oppositie of democracy.

Notice how all the Communist tyrannies call themselves "republics." That is not a misuse of the term; elitist contempt for the majority is the essence of all republics.

Americans had decent republic representation up until the 1970s-80s.

In the 80s, one of Reagan's Congresses voted themselves The Lords of America, and it's been downhill ever since.

Ever since they could take corporate bribes with impunity, the peoples' needs have been ignored in favor of personal gain.

Citizens United needs nuked from orbit, along with whatever they did in the 1980s.

 

[zaangalewa]

Is my word for my nationality.

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

Idiot ^^^^^

Accepted. Keeps for me the problem why it is so damn important for an enemy of the US of the continent America to call America America and to use a totally new background behind the use of the word America. "You" do so also with the word democracy and republic - but this intentional confusion I am able to identify as a very bad form of campaign and the will of autocratic enemies of the USA to destroy the democracy USA. ...

 

[BackAgain]

What exactly did you not understand from the words which I said to you here, atheist and blasphemer?

It’s your lack of comprehension that’s at issue, here — which, for you, is typical. You are the blasphemous one. And although jerkoffs such as you don’t grasp it, your daffynition of “atheist” is wrong.

I don’t know where you got your mistaken idea that I’m an atheist. I’m not. I’ve repeatedly noted that I believe in God. I don’t believe that He believes in religion.

The balance of your usually nonsensical post is worthless since you proceed from the false premise.

Were you always this stupid or did the doctors in the delivery room mistake you for a soccer ball?

 

[BackAgain]

Still on objective statement. You continue to fail.

Your statement ^ isn’t even coherent. Poor Jerk. You should edit your posts before hitting “post reply.”

Your ceaseless fail is noted and perfectly predictable.

 

[Hum Dinger]

This is the problem I am trying to address, but it's not specifically the outcomes of the elections that I am concerned with. Americans are extremely divided. That is why they seem to hate negotiating and compromising. I looked for reasons for our extreme divisiveness and found one that stood out above all else: Our representatives are not representing us. Instead, they deliberately dividing us with their antics, their fake news, and their false conspiracy theories. Take your pick! Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, everyone here has swallowed their favorite bait, compliments of our representatives. Instead of leading us towards some kind of unity in order to have rational negotiations regarding compromises, they are leading us towards extreme hatred and divisiveness, all based on false premises.

If our representatives were doing their jobs, it wouldn't make much difference if we voted for a Republican or a Democrat; conservative or liberal, as long as they all made a great effort to set aside their own political beliefs and worked to achieve a significant, majority compromise among their constituents without polluting the process with their own, questionable, political biases.

I understand your point, but it seems that Washington politicians have created this environment. At least come liberals - including most liberal politicians want to change this but so far they have been blocked.

The root of the problem is the filibuster. It is a way of insuring that NOTHING gets done in Washington unless an overwhelming number of Senators agree to it. If Senate bill has 60+ votes, it probably has 90+ votes. The senate was not conceived to only legislate by unanimous consent. If nothing gets done, no one can be blamed. No one is responsible.

This allows politicians to make outrageous, extreme and unrealistic promises. That in turn gets all the extreme wackos to support them. They know that the outrageous, extreme and unrealistic promises that they make will never pass the filibuster. It makes them look like they've 'fought the good fight' - and can always blame their failure on the other side.

It is one huge boondoogle.

Meanwhile their outrageous, extreme and unrealistic promises continue to increase their support among the most extreme (and idiotic) people. The result is that the entire political system is controlled by extremists.

If the filibuster was eliminated, politicians would have no excuse to not pass the legislation that they promise. They would OWN the results and be held responsible. They would have to think twice before making outrageous, extreme and unrealistic promises.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your statement ^ isn’t even coherent. Poor Jerk. You should edit your posts before hitting “post reply.”

Your ceaseless fail is noted and perfectly predictable.

I actually wrote that while taking a shit this morning which is fitting for conversations with you.

Still can't accept the objective fact that slavery is the forceful oppression of liberty?

 

[BackAgain]

I actually wrote that while taking a shit this morning which is fitting for conversations with you.

Still can't accept the objective fact that slavery is the forceful oppression of liberty?

If I printed your posts, I’d have a ready supply of toilet paper but it would already be shit-stained.

You still cannot deal with the actual definition of tyranny which is what our conversation has been about. You just blatantly tried to reframe it.

I recognize that you are mentally retarded. But try to follow along. Slavery is wrong. In fact, we today consider it immoral. That’s not even a question open to debate.

But tyranny actually refers to the form of government as I noted earlier.

tyranny​

noun​

tyr·an·ny ˈtir-ə-nē

plural tyrannies
Synonyms of tyranny
1
: oppressive power
every form of tyranny over the mind of man—Thomas Jefferson

especially : oppressive power exerted by government
the tyranny of a police state

Definition of TYRANNY (my emphasis added).

So, here’s the thing obtuse twits like JerkGoat try to ignore: Slavery wasn’t performed by the government. It was performed by individuals.

JerkGoat chooses to conflate that with his own bubble-headed daffynition.

 

[GreenBean]

We aren’t a democracy. So, you know, there’s that.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracies have a tendency to descend into dictatorships.

Both systems allow for citizens to be represented by elected representatives .
In pure democracy, laws are made directly by the majority, leaving minority rights unprotected.

In a republic, laws are made by elected representatives in compliance with a framework or constitution that is supposed to protect minority rights of the from the will of the majority.
The Constitution and ammendments / Bill of Rights, prohibits government from infringing on “inalienable” rights, even if that government was freely chosen by the majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.

So Basically a Democracy is as stated in another Post
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” ― James Bovard, The Destruction of American Liberty


Republics decline into democracies and democracies decline into despotisms. - Plato ?