No, it isn't.
First you can't define "democracy", now you can't define "elitism". Hopefully, Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary in your stocking this year.
No, what we REALLY want is people like you, who think it's a good idea to revoke everyone else's rights and freedoms and tell them how to live and what to think for their own good.
FYI, that is the definition of "elitism" you were looking for earlier.
You scare me. You really, really do. You are the reason that totalitarian dictatorships come to power and wreak horror on humanity.
Memo to me: America's public schools are even more broken than I thought, if this is the detritus being produced.
Look, I dont see anything here that actually proves what your point is. Infact, I am very unclear as to what your point is. After reading through your posts you said I should not be talking about education.....well that makes no sense. Why question my credentials without displaying your own first, and second why question my credentials when I am not the one on "FOX NEWS CHANNEL" reporting "BREAKING NEWS" with zero credentials. At least Bill Oreilly has credentials for his biased reporting, thats a start. Perhaps you can fill me in on your credentials, since you have so much free time on your hands.....clearly you have not educated yourself to do something that involves working on the weekends. Let me ask you why you have some all encompassing ascribed knowledge that gives you some type of papal infallibility in all of the fields you have responded in? What have I missed while attending graduate school? Is it now the "norm" to obsess over someones posts and respond with one or two non cited, unclear, biased commentary thinking one has actually proven anything to anyone?
Second, you actually pulled out the definition of democracy proving my point. In the definition it said "Represented by elected officials" ........lol thank you for that. Never did I say that the people were not in power here you obsessive fan of mine. I know you love to twist everything I say and credulously spew out one liners that seem to make you look somewhat more educated or more informed than me on this subject, but the truth is I see nothing new to your argument. I mean for christ sake the only thing you cited was a definition which proved that ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE US. That gives all the power to the people, BUT.......it gives all the LEGISTLATIVE responsibility and federal/state legal constitutional interpretation to the elected officials you dimwit. I have never actually met someone who thinks that the American people should decide what to ammend on a constitution based on a populiar vote. like I said, if this were true....many things would be different. But I guess we will not see the results of prop 8 until the state supreme court rules on it. Believe me as soon as they do, I will contact you for a civil discussion on the matter
You even brought out totalitarian arguments, okay how desperate can you get. Nobody said anything about a system of government in which the people have little to no political contribution to the system of chiefdom or rule based. The fact that we elect our officials alone, makes totalitarianism impossible......and since I never said that the people should NOT elect officials, your claim is once again dis-proven. I am actually beginning to question your rep rating. How can someone with such a high rep score actually believe the biased opinions that come out of their mouth. And whats worse, is that your opinions are not something new. I have heard all of this before and it clearly indicates your lack of ability to read something other than a google search quiry.
I really wish you had a few books to read on the subject, perhaps even the literal capacity to understand what you are reading.
If you are going to be obsessive over my posts, at least add something that is factual that you are not contractually obligated to say by your diety or whatever it is you follow (at least thats what it sounds like). I know what the bible say's you tool. Unless you can prove to me that it is NOT a sin to breed outside of wedlock, well then your religion argument falls flat. How can it not be a sin to be born that way either when (according to the old king james testamen) every baby is born with "original sin". Which is why there is baptism. My question is, if one can be born with original sin, why can they not be born with other sin? And does it even matter? One can just repent their sins, which is fine but my argument was that the bastards who accuse gays of sinning, are the same bastards who must repent every day of their clear and explicit refusal to follow their own commandments. Why dont you talk to me about pope John XII and his homosexual behavior and the raping of his own sisters. Or perhaps you would like to talk to me about Pope Benedict IX and his sexual relations with his own daughter and even some animals. My point is that homosexuality is not a sin, and if it were....many leaders of many churches would not be where they are today, nor would dozens of popes have any divine authority over anyone. Which means that our vote on prop 8 is clear hypocritical injustice.
PS. Do me a favor, respond with one post. I dont have time to read dozens of multiquoted posts. Infact I am probably the only one who read pages 41 and 42 on this thread (which is mostly you ranting and raving all over the reservation, gushing with confusing hypocritical irony).
