Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
701

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy is “mob rule” with the exception that minorities can’t be discriminated against by that rule.
[/quote]

No, what you just described would be a constitutional democracy, which is a completely different thing. The thing that prevents the discrimination and is placed over public will would be the constitution.

But again, our constitution is set up to protect all individuals, not just specific racial preferences. It also protects negative rights instead of the right to not be offended.

702

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Other countries call that democracry.

But would you be fine with one person dictating what’s a proper sexlife, and legislate accordingly?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-sex.html[/quote]

And no country on the planet has a democracy, for the simple fact it doesn’t work. The US was specifically designed to NOT be a democracy and to protect the individual from the public will.

And it is apparent that you have no idea how I stand on other issues, so you are going to make things up to suit your argument.[/quote]

Democracy doesn’t exist?

703

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy is “mob rule” with the exception that minorities can’t be discriminated against by that rule.
[/quote]

No, what you just described would be a constitutional democracy, which is a completely different thing. The thing that prevents the discrimination and is placed over public will would be the constitution.

But again, our constitution is set up to protect all individuals, not just specific racial preferences. It also protects negative rights instead of the right to not be offended. [/quote]

Do you think that the current republican candidates show respect for the constitution when you look at their proposed legislation?

704

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Other countries call that democracry.

But would you be fine with one person dictating what’s a proper sexlife, and legislate accordingly?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-sex.html[/quote]

And no country on the planet has a democracy, for the simple fact it doesn’t work. The US was specifically designed to NOT be a democracy and to protect the individual from the public will.

And it is apparent that you have no idea how I stand on other issues, so you are going to make things up to suit your argument.[/quote]

Democracy doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

That is based on:
“Whether national elections are free and fair”;
“The security of voters”;
“The influence of foreign powers on government”;
“The capability of the civil servants to implement policies”.

Democracy - 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No, none of those countries are democracies. They are all constitutional republics that have a democratic process for officials.

Democracy means that ultimate power is vesting in the voting public. That is not true for any country in the world. You don’t even know what the word means. Democracies are, as a whole, evil.

705

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy is “mob rule” with the exception that minorities can’t be discriminated against by that rule.
[/quote]

No, what you just described would be a constitutional democracy, which is a completely different thing. The thing that prevents the discrimination and is placed over public will would be the constitution.

But again, our constitution is set up to protect all individuals, not just specific racial preferences. It also protects negative rights instead of the right to not be offended. [/quote]

Do you think that the current republican candidates show respect for the constitution when you look at their proposed legislation?
[/quote]

No.

706

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Other countries call that democracry.

But would you be fine with one person dictating what’s a proper sexlife, and legislate accordingly?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-sex.html[/quote]

Your idea of Democracy is “mob rule” and robs people of individual liberty and freedom. Plain and simple, we are seeing every day as they try to further their agenda in our country. [/quote]

Democracy is “mob rule” with the exception that minorities can’t be discriminated against by that rule.

Instead, you seem to be fine with an small elite deciding what is best for you; claiming to know what how you should live your life.

How is that freedom?[/quote]

No democracy protects no one but the mob,

And if followed the constitution prevents us from being controlled by elitist,

707

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy is “mob rule” with the exception that minorities can’t be discriminated against by that rule.
[/quote]

No, what you just described would be a constitutional democracy, which is a completely different thing. The thing that prevents the discrimination and is placed over public will would be the constitution.

But again, our constitution is set up to protect all individuals, not just specific racial preferences. It also protects negative rights instead of the right to not be offended. [/quote]

Do you think that the current republican candidates show respect for the constitution when you look at their proposed legislation?
[/quote]

One does, and so does his son and a small group of them, but the majority no.

The 2 party system is set up to limit our choices and consolidate power.

I am aggravated they are taking this show off the air, now I have no reason to keep my cable.

709

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

That is based on:
“Whether national elections are free and fair”;
“The security of voters”;
“The influence of foreign powers on government”;
“The capability of the civil servants to implement policies”.

Democracy - 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No, none of those countries are democracies. They are all constitutional republics that have a democratic process for officials.

Democracy means that ultimate power is vesting in the voting public. That is not true for any country in the world. You don’t even know what the word means. Democracies are, as a whole, evil.[/quote]

With such a strict definition only Switserland applies, that’s true.

But evil?

Nah.

710

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

The 2 party system is set up to limit our choices and consolidate power.[/quote]

Ok, the Founders set that up, so it was their mistake. I’m curious - what system should the Founders have set up?

711

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Democracy doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

That is based on:
“Whether national elections are free and fair”;
“The security of voters”;
“The influence of foreign powers on government”;
“The capability of the civil servants to implement policies”.

Democracy - 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No, none of those countries are democracies. They are all constitutional republics that have a democratic process for officials.

Democracy means that ultimate power is vesting in the voting public. That is not true for any country in the world. You don’t even know what the word means. Democracies are, as a whole, evil.[/quote]

With such a strict definition only Switserland applies, that’s true.

But evil?

Nah.[/quote]

It’s not a strict definition, it’s the real definition. It essentially means that the vote of citizens is the absolute law. It means that if a country got a majority vote to commit genocide, support sharia law, emancipate all children to state custody, silence a decedent group, imprison people who think different, execute gays, establish and enforce a state religion, est. it would be entirely legal.

And no, Switzerland isn’t a democracy.

712

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

The 2 party system is set up to limit our choices and consolidate power.[/quote]

Ok, the Founders set that up, so it was their mistake. I’m curious - what system should the Founders have set up?[/quote]

Actually, they pretty much all initially committed to being a no-party system until decisive issues polarized them into 2 camps. Most despised the party system altogether though.

713

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually, they pretty much all initially committed to being a no-party system until decisive issues polarized them into 2 camps. Most despised the party system altogether though.[/quote]

Actually, we still are the same “no party” system - we don’t have any requirements or parliamentaey seating. Parties simply evolved as a way to organize platforms and candidates. The system - being wide open - just tends toward the presence of parties.

So, what system should the Founders have implemented?

714

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually, they pretty much all initially committed to being a no-party system until decisive issues polarized them into 2 camps. Most despised the party system altogether though.[/quote]

Actually, we still are the same “no party” system - we don’t have any requirements or parliamentaey seating. Parties simply evolved as a way to organize platforms and candidates. The system - being wide open - just tends toward the presence of parties.

So, what system should the Founders have implemented?[/quote]

Ah, but initially they ran for office without party affiliation and even the first loose “parties” essentially were a platform description (federalist vs anti-federalist).

We are only stuck on a 2-party system today essentially because the general public votes based on party and is generally un-educated.

I’d also say that we DO NOT implement the initial system (at least for president) that the founders first laid out. The founders actually had electors voted on and those electors got together and debated and then pick a president and a vice president from the candidates. That isn’t what we do. That system was set up to protect people from their own ignorance, and it’s been altered.

715

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Ah, but initially they ran for office without party affiliation and even the first loose “parties” essentially were a platform description (federalist vs anti-federalist).[/quote]

By the time Adams was (the second) president, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans had already staked out sides as parties in national elections.

So, the founding generation first started recognizing and utilizing parties in some of the earliest presidential elections we had.

And? So what? Even within that original system, the founding generation began using parties in electoral politics.

716

[quote]ephrem wrote:

How insecure and fearful you must be.[/quote]

I’m not the one trying to use a government to trespass on the fundamental beliefs of Catholic organizations. And, over some novel constitutional power to impose on private negotiations. Hell, I’m not the fearful and insecure one that’s telling ANYONE that they HAVE to provide this or that coverage. You’re the one who bows to the nanny state, giving up freedom for cradle to grave coverage. Not just your own freedom, either. That’s insecure and fearful. Don’t you ever forget that. You have a bizarre sense of ‘freedom.’

717

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

How insecure and fearful you must be.[/quote]

I’m not the one trying to use a government to trespass on the fundamental beliefs of Catholic organizations. And, over some novel constitutional power to impose on private negotiations. Hell, I’m not the fearful and insecure one that’s telling ANYONE that they HAVE to provide this or that coverage. You’re the one who bows to the nanny state, giving up freedom for cradle to grave coverage. Not just your own freedom, either. That’s insecure and fearful. Don’t you ever forget that. You have a bizarre sense of ‘freedom.’ [/quote]

The fundamental beliefs of a religious organisation are irrelevant to the workings of a democratic government.

Or at least they should be.

Neither of us are free Sloth, not by my definition anyway. The last free peoples are the few tribes still living [and dying] in remote forests of the Amazon basin and Papua-New Guinea.

That’s freedom.

We have allowances.

718

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The fundamental beliefs of a religious organisation are irrelevant to the workings of a democratic government.

Or at least they should be.[/quote]

Tyranny. What are you, a Borg drone?

[quote]Neither of us are free Sloth, not by my definition anyway. The last free peoples are the few tribes still living [and dying] in remote forests of the Amazon basin and Papua-New Guinea.

That’s freedom.

We have allowances.[/quote]

Perhaps you don’t, because you’re frightened and insecure. Frightened and insecure, remember that? But I was promised basic fundamental freedoms. And this freedom, found in the 1st, isn’t going to be trampled on by some newly discovered and novel power of the government backed by mob rule. Don’t you ever criticize the Church and it’s voluntary associations again, so long as you support an armed tyranny.

Here’s a novel friggen idea. The Church and it’s organizations can’t provide this coverage. Flat out, can’t. For those who still voluntarily take a position with them, there are other benefits and a wage. Freedom, it’s scary, huh?

719

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The fundamental beliefs of a religious organisation are irrelevant to the workings of a democratic government.

Or at least they should be.[/quote]

Tyranny. What are you, a Borg drone?

[quote]Neither of us are free Sloth, not by my definition anyway. The last free peoples are the few tribes still living [and dying] in remote forests of the Amazon basin and Papua-New Guinea.

That’s freedom.

We have allowances.[/quote]

Perhaps you don’t, because you’re frightened and insecure. Frightened and insecure, remember that? But I was promised basic fundamental freedoms. And this freedom, found in the 1st, isn’t going to be trampled on by some newly discovered and novel power of the government backed by mob rule. Don’t you ever criticize the Church and it’s voluntary associations again, so long as you support an armed tyranny.

Here’s a novel friggen idea. The Church and it’s organizations can’t provide this coverage. Flat out, can’t. For those who still voluntarily take a position with them, there are other benefits and a wage. Freedom, it’s scary, huh?[/quote]

What is it you want?

Do you want the freedom to discriminate against people using your religion?

720

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The fundamental beliefs of a religious organisation are irrelevant to the workings of a democratic government.

Or at least they should be.[/quote]

Tyranny. What are you, a Borg drone?

[quote]Neither of us are free Sloth, not by my definition anyway. The last free peoples are the few tribes still living [and dying] in remote forests of the Amazon basin and Papua-New Guinea.

That’s freedom.

We have allowances.[/quote]

Perhaps you don’t, because you’re frightened and insecure. Frightened and insecure, remember that? But I was promised basic fundamental freedoms. And this freedom, found in the 1st, isn’t going to be trampled on by some newly discovered and novel power of the government backed by mob rule. Don’t you ever criticize the Church and it’s voluntary associations again, so long as you support an armed tyranny.

Here’s a novel friggen idea. The Church and it’s organizations can’t provide this coverage. Flat out, can’t. For those who still voluntarily take a position with them, there are other benefits and a wage. Freedom, it’s scary, huh?[/quote]

What is it you want?

Do you want the freedom to discriminate against people using your religion?

[/quote]

Discrimination is another word that merely means decision. Every thing you do in your life is discriminatory. It’s the attempt to get rid of all discrimination that is essentially a modern war on the right to choose as well as logic, reason, and common sense.

I discriminate against lots of people. Child molesters, murdered, thieves, rapists, people who beat up their spouses, est. You don’t think I should be able to discriminate against these people on moral/religious grounds?