dmcoco84 5 #51 June 27, 2013 SkyDekkerI don't think you understand that head of state, head of government and parliament all are different entities. But, please do explain where the contradiction is. Honestly, I can't for sure say what form of government you have; I don't care, nor care to do any research. I'm not going to argue your form of government... and returning my country to the former United States, is what matters. However, by saying you have a parliament, with or without a Constitution, by definition defeats your argument outright, using the logic of the Founder... which is the best logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 June 27, 2013 SkyDekkerQuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. The last Iranian election met those requirements, apparently. But the candidate list, otoh, had to be approved by the religious rulers. You could freely vote for anyone they offered up to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #53 June 27, 2013 QuoteHowever, by saying you have a parliament, with or without a Constitution, by definition defeats your argument outright, using the logic of the Founder... which is the best logic. Thank you, it all makes sense now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 June 27, 2013 dmcoco84 Seriously, Fuck RR. He is not the Model President for our Republic. He is a Progressive Republican, who was a Massive Progressive Democrat before he changed his mind on some minor things... At no point was he a Democrat or a Republican... he has always been a Progressive D/R. Yow- you know the GOP has really lost its compass when it writes off Ron as "that fucking RINO." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 June 27, 2013 kelpdiver***QuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. The last Iranian election met those requirements, apparently. But the candidate list, otoh, had to be approved by the religious rulers. You could freely vote for anyone they offered up to you. lmao, yes that sounds like a very fair and open process to me. Would you like to twist and turn some more to disagree with me out of principle? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 June 27, 2013 SkyDekker******QuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. The last Iranian election met those requirements, apparently. But the candidate list, otoh, had to be approved by the religious rulers. You could freely vote for anyone they offered up to you. lmao, yes that sounds like a very fair and open process to me. Would you like to twist and turn some more to disagree with me out of principle? the voting was done fairly and openly. As it is done in many places that really would need an asterisk next to the depiction of "democratic." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #57 June 27, 2013 livendiveOddly enough, I'd consider Merriam-Webster to be a more reputable source for the definition of an English word than some random person on an internet forum. Blues, Dave I've posted plenty of my sources. And after 100 years of Progressive degradation of Founding Principles (and everything explained in the Federalist Papers)... its not surprising that a dictionary is wrong about something the Progressives would want to manipulate so that "the people" couldn't simply open a dictionary and get the truth. Wikipedia is just as useless... though, not for things like medical questions. Look at dictionary.com... my favorite dictionary: its far worse! 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Um, No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #58 June 27, 2013 kelpdiver*** Seriously, Fuck RR. He is not the Model President for our Republic. He is a Progressive Republican, who was a Massive Progressive Democrat before he changed his mind on some minor things... At no point was he a Democrat or a Republican... he has always been a Progressive D/R. Yow- you know the GOP has really lost its compass when it writes off Ron as "that fucking RINO." I am equally tired of that term... And he isn't a RINO. He is a Progressive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #59 June 27, 2013 Those damn Progressives: abolished slavery, gave the vote to women, allowed mixed race marriages, put in child labor laws, desegregated schools...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #60 June 27, 2013 dmcoco84I've posted plenty of my sources. And after 100 years of Progressive degradation of Founding Principles (and everything explained in the Federalist Papers)... its not surprising that a dictionary is wrong about something the Progressives would want to manipulate so that "the people" couldn't simply open a dictionary and get the truth. Hmm...I'm pretty sure democracy also predates the Federalist Papers. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #61 June 27, 2013 kallend Those damn Progressives: abolished slavery, gave the vote to women, allowed mixed race marriages, put in child labor laws, desegregated schools... Stupidity... equally as stupid saying the 3/5ths clause was racist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #62 June 27, 2013 SkyDekker******QuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. ONLY if the votes individually counted. Are you contending individual votes do NOT count in the US? Yes. Or are you unaware that a majority can vote for a candidate and he not win an election?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #63 June 27, 2013 Quote Hmm...I'm pretty sure democracy also predates the Federalist Papers. Blues, Dave That statement makes absolutely no sense... ESPECIALLY if you read the Federalist Papers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #64 June 27, 2013 dmcoco84 *** Those damn Progressives: abolished slavery, gave the vote to women, allowed mixed race marriages, put in child labor laws, desegregated schools... Stupidity... equally as stupid saying the 3/5ths clause was racist. You're funny, but not in a good way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #65 June 27, 2013 turtlespeed*********QuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. ONLY if the votes individually counted. Are you contending individual votes do NOT count in the US? Yes. Or are you unaware that a majority can vote for a candidate and he not win an election? Really, a majority can vote for a Senator yet that Senator can still lose the election? What about Representatives? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #66 June 27, 2013 SkyDekker************QuoteIt is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. If that voting is done in an open, fair and free fashion, it would indeed be pretty democratic. ONLY if the votes individually counted. Are you contending individual votes do NOT count in the US? Yes. Or are you unaware that a majority can vote for a candidate and he not win an election? Really, a majority can vote for a Senator yet that Senator can still lose the election? What about Representatives? Have you heard that the US has a president?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 June 27, 2013 I am sorry, I thought we were talking about government elections. Didn't realzie you didn't know there was more to the US government than just a President. Sure sounds like the majority of the US government gets elected through a very democratic process with every individual vote counting. People calling the US a democracy sure are stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #68 June 27, 2013 SkyDekker I am sorry, I thought we were talking about government elections. Didn't realzie you didn't know there was more to the US government than just a President. Sure sounds like the majority of the US government gets elected through a very democratic process with every individual vote counting. People calling the US a democracy sure are stupid. Yes, yes they are. You finally get it.YAY Skydekker!!! Akin to calling the ocean something so limiting as just "water" when it is so very much more than that.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #69 June 27, 2013 dmcoco84Quote Hmm...I'm pretty sure democracy also predates the Federalist Papers. Blues, Dave That statement makes absolutely no sense... ESPECIALLY if you read the Federalist Papers. You said QuoteAnd after 100 years of Progressive degradation of Founding Principles (and everything explained in the Federalist Papers)... its not surprising that a dictionary is wrong about something the Progressives would want to manipulate so that "the people" couldn't simply open a dictionary and get the truth. The implication is that degradation of the Founding Principles resulted in redefining a word that predates them. Direct democracy in Athens notwithstanding, Iceland embraced representative democracy in the 10th century. While it is true that our system of governance is a republic, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy, both are sub-types of democracy by virtue of the leadership being elected to their positions rather than gaining them through birth or coup. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #70 June 27, 2013 Wrong. Read Federalist 39 and then re-read what you wrote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #71 June 28, 2013 Would it be [possible for you to disagree without bashing? A stand-alone bash adds nothing to the thread.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
