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

[Curried Goats]

False. When your argument is founded upon a lie, as yours is, nothing that you say flowing from your dishonest premise is useful. You should ask to change your username to JerkGoat. Or maybe just Jerk or jerkoff.

Getting angry isn't an argument. What lie are you referring to? Slavery is tyranny, the Founders and this country engaged in slavery, ergo the Founders were tyrants. What part of this simple to follow logic are you stumbling on, Short Bus?

You didn’t “point out” any such thing you made a dishonest claim. No need for me to get emotional about your lies and lack of logic. That’s all on you, boo boo.

Clearly I've broken you by factually describing the Founders as tyrants.

It is a false “point” and complete disputable for that very reason. And all you can do is cry and repeat your ineffective lie. Sucks to be you.

Still not seeing you disputing it though I do see a lot of emotional tears and anger.

You’re a retard. You keep using the word as if you had any handle on what it means. Clearly, however, you don’t. Or you’re just a liar. But either way, your argument has zero value.

I never started. I leave that shit to lowlife scum like you.

Since you can’t even define the term you regularly misuse, maybe you should stop being a retard about it and get yourself educated before you post anything.

Unlike your position, mine actually embraces logic. You are clueless.

What isn't clearly defined for you you Bingo? Slavery is tyranny, the Founders were slavers, ergo they were tyrants.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That isn’t a lie.

It is.
The GOP holds a majority in state legislatures and governors - and the House.
Your point, negated.

The requirement for 60 senators to vote in favour of any law is not in the constitution. The filibuster is not in the constitution. Both are the product of the Jim Crow era. Even with a majority in the Senate, the minority holds the key to whether any bills pass at all. That’s the essence of minority rule.

The Democrats refuse to end it, which they can do with a majority vote.
Blame them.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

But I don't understand what means "bitch in you". And I am sure I had really to learn a lot until I will be really able to understand what such a simple sentence really means in your culture. What I can see immediatelly for example is it that you defame women - although we spoke about nothing in this context. So your enculturation is not a traditional European enculturation.

Women Degrade Themselves With Their Typical Petty Nagging

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That isn’t a lie. The US senators who confirmed justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, represented 1,500,000 fewer voters than the Senators who voted against her appointment.

The requirement for 60 senators to vote in favour of any law is not in the constitution. The filibuster is not in the constitution. Both are the product of the Jim Crow era. Even with a majority in the Senate, the minority holds the key to whether any bills pass at all. That’s the essence of minority rule.

Last, but certainly not least the only Republican to win the popular vote in the general election for president since 2000, was G.W. Bush in 2004, and even then it was very close. Yet the Republicans have held the WH for 12 of those 23 years to disastrous results.

We can also talk about the gerrymandering for the House seats and look at the popular vote in Congressional elections during the same time frame.

That’s the very definition of minority rule.

#factsnottalkingpoints

A Union Destroyed by the Cancer of Elitism

If Americans were capable of understanding anything outside the system that treats them like ignorant lowlife, they'd be open to letting the majority decide the laws. Because the representative systems gives up the authority of the majority to a representative's particular desires unrestricted by the people who so foolishly put him in that position of absolute and arbitrary decision-making, the Popular Vote cannot be considered democratic.

If the majority in 1964 had been given the democratic right to directly decide through referendums on voting rights and immigration, the present permanent "Democratic" Party majority in the Popular Vote would not exist, and neither would the "Democratic" Party with its present agenda. It would be a little-know fringe party.

So it's too late to institute democracy. That ship sailed long ago.

As for the electoral vote, that is a different issue from whether an anti-Populist vote can ever be called a "Popular Vote." Besides, Populists will never win that vote again, either.

 

[BackAgain]

Getting angry isn't an argument. What lie are you referring to? Slavery is tyranny,

It would certainly seem like tyranny to the enslaved. But again, only some of our Framers had slaves. And some of them were aware of and concerned by the disconnect between arguing for personal liberty yet holding slaves. Your idiotic claim is that “the” Famers were tyrants. That’s nonsense.

the Founders and this country engaged in slavery, ergo the Founders were tyrants.

Your abused universal statement is false and you are illogical.

What part of this simple to follow logic are you stumbling on,

Your premise is false. When it comes to logic, you have none to rely one. Also, yiur ayllogism is fallacious, you retard.

Clearly I've broken you by factually describing the Founders as tyrants.

Neither clear nor true. You’re just having a menstrual cramp over the fact that you are exposed as dishonest and illogical, you dipshit.

Still not seeing you disputing it though I do see a lot of emotional tears and anger.

False. It stands disputed as I’ve noted here and earlier. And you see no tears and no anger. You are simply lying some more. No surprise there.

What isn't clearly defined for you

Clarity isn’t the issue. But I’m sure you’ll never grasp that. You are sufficiently clear, just flatly wrong. There’s a difference there, you babbling bungling bozo.

Slavery is tyranny,

Repeat yourself much?

the Founders were slavers,

False. Some were.

ergo they were tyrants.

False. And illogical.

Ergo, you’re useless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just specified a limit that ....

... has absolutely nothing to do with with the issue at hand....
...because you know you don't have a meaningful response

Now, how 'bout you give it another try -- and this time, not avoid the issue, like a little bitch:

Here's the entire declaration, for reference:
"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
- USSC

"...all instruments that constitute bearable arms..."
What limit does this allow?

 

[Curried Goats]

It would certainly seem like tyranny to the enslaved. But again, only some of our Framers had slaves. And some of them were aware of and concerned by the disconnect between arguing for personal liberty yet holding slaves. Your idiotic claim is that “the” Famers were tyrants. That’s nonsense.

It would seem like tyranny? What a cowardly attempt at a dodge. Slavery is tyranny dumb dumb, certainly more so than taxation without representation. Also every citizen didn't have to be a slave owner for this country to have been a slave State. That's a ridiculous standard. The fact is this country condoned slavery, allowed slavery and profited greatly from slavery. There is no rational argument that America was not a slave State and it's political leaders not tyrants.

Your abused universal statement is false and you are illogical.

Your premise is false. When it comes to logic, you have none to rely one. Also, yiur ayllogism is fallacious, you retard.

The Founders are the ones who wrote the laws that legalized and legitimized slavery in this country. They were tyrants. It's okay to admit the truth Soy boy.

Neither clear nor true. You’re just having a menstrual cramp over the fact that you are exposed as dishonest and illogical, you dipshit.

You seem to be the one having the emotional breakdown.

False. It stands disputed as I’ve noted here and earlier. And you see no tears and no anger. You are simply lying some more. No surprise there.

Disputed with what? Where's your argument for how they weren't tyrants? I don't care if you're too emotional fragile to accept obvious facts.

Clarity isn’t the issue. But I’m sure you’ll never grasp that. You are sufficiently clear, just flatly wrong. There’s a difference there, you babbling bungling bozo.

Repeat yourself much?


False. Some were.

False. And illogical.

Ergo, you’re useless.

Were those some who were slavers hunted down and arrested for their crimes or were they welcomed into all three branches of our government?

 

[BackAgain]

It would seem like tyranny? What a cowardly attempt at a dodge.

False. I was conceding that it would seem like tyranny to any slave. You don’t grasp the import of words very well. I guess that’s because you’re libtarded.

Slavery is tyranny dumb dumb,

No. It isn’t. Look up the meaning of the word, you asshole.

As I often have to point out to all manner of you mindless drooling libturds, words have actual meanings.

But it’s pointless trying to discuss or debate anything with a dishonest drone libtard like you.

 

[Curried Goats]

False. I was conceding that it would seem like tyranny to any slave. You don’t grasp the import of words very well. I guess that’s because you’re libtarded.

It would only seem like tyranny or it is tyranny? You are a complete bitch because you're obviously afraid to say whether or not slavery looks like tyranny to you. If it doesn't then I wonder what definition of tyranny you're using. Certainly not a standard one.

No. It isn’t. Look up the meaning of the word, you asshole.

Definition of TYRANNY

As I often have to point out to all manner of you mindless drooling libturds, words have actual meanings.

Yes, like the word coward, which you are.

But it’s pointless trying to discuss or debate anything with a dishonest drone libtard like you.

It's not pointless to me. I enjoy pointing and laughing at Simps like yourself.

 

[BackAgain]

It would only seem like tyranny or it is tyranny? You are a complete bitch because you're obviously afraid to say whether or not slavery looks like tyranny to you. If it doesn't then I wonder what definition of tyranny you're using. Certainly not a standard one.

Definition of TYRANNY

Yes, like the word coward, which you are.

It's not pointless to me. I enjoy pointing and laughing at Simps like yourself.

So, I managed to get a libtard to actually look at a definition. It’s a small win, but it’s a start. A tyranny is a cruel or oppressive government. Slave holders weren’t governments. It can also mean a cruel or oppressive rule. In some way that could apply except for the fact that not even most slave holders weee cruel. It would be kind of counter productive for them to have been cruel in many cases.

That said, we have all read and even seen photographic evidence of some cruelty by some slave holders. I note that only to be fully forthcoming. But also to deny your baseless claim that the fact that some Framers were slave holders doesn’t constitute evidence of their tyranny.

 

[BackAgain]

... has absolutely nothing to do with with the issue at hand....
...because you know you don't have a meaningful response

Now, how 'bout you give it another try -- and this time, not avoid the issue, like a little bitch:

Here's the entire declaration, for reference:
"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
- USSC

"...all instruments that constitute bearable arms..."
What limit does this allow?

Tanks. Nuclear missiles. I dare you carry any such item.

 

[Curried Goats]

So, I managed to get a libtard to actually look at a definition. It’s a small win, but it’s a start. A tyranny is a cruel or oppressive government. Slave holders weren’t governments. It can also mean a cruel or oppressive rule. In some way that could apply except for the fact that not even most slave holders weee cruel. It would be kind of counter productive for them to have been cruel in many cases.

The facts disputing and destroying your argument are that:

1. Slavery was condoned by the government.

2. Many of the slave owners were in Government, including our first President.

3. Keeping people in bondage, selling their loved ones, and stealing the value of their labor is inherently cruel. That isn't a nice thing to do to another human being.

That said, we have all read and even seen photographic evidence of some cruelty by some slave holders. I note that only to be fully forthcoming. But also to deny your baseless claim that the fact that some Framers were slave holders doesn’t constitute evidence of their tyranny.

It is you Simp. If taxation without representation is tyranny then slavery most definitely is. Stop being stuck on stupid.

 

[BackAgain]

The facts disputing and destroying your argument are that:

1. Slavery was condoned by the government.

That neither undercuts much less destroys anything I posted, your self-serving claim notwithstanding.

2. Many of the slave owners were in Government, including our first President.

Again known. Not at all a disputation of anything I posted.

3. Keeping people in bondage, selling their loved ones, and stealing the value of their labor is inherently cruel.

I agree that applying today’s more enlightened sensibilities, that should be obvious.

That isn't a nice thing to do to another human being.

I didn’t say diddly shit about being nice.

It is .

No it isn’t, you droning fuckwit.

If taxation without representation is tyranny then slavery most definitely is. Stop being stuck on stupid.

Taxation without representation standing alone isn’t tyranny, you moron. But combine it with the many other impositions on our liberties inflicted by English RULE, they could be labeled as tyrannical.

You have never moved off of your stupidity. If anything, you seem more committed to it with every post. I know why, too. You are a libtard. (Although I’m pretty sure you have other reasons to post such nonsensical shit, as you always do.)

 

[Curried Goats]

That neither undercuts much less destroys anything I posted, your self-serving claim notwithstanding.

It does, you're just too stupid to realize it.

Again known. Not at all a disputation of anything I posted.

I agree that applying today’s more enlightened sensibilities, that should be obvious.

I didn’t say diddly shit about being nice.


No it isn’t, you droning fuckwit.

Slavery is tyranny today, yesterday the day before that one and as far back as you want to go. Whether or not something is tyrannical has nothing to do with the date it happened.

Taxation without representation standing alone isn’t tyranny, you moron. But combine it with the many other impositions on our liberties inflicted by English RULE, they could be labeled as tyrannical.

There is no bigger imposition to liberty than forced servitude you fucking moron.

You have never moved off of your stupidity. If anything, you seem more committed to it with every post. I know why, too. You are a libtard. (Although I’m pretty sure you have other reasons to post such nonsensical shit, as you always do.)

Continue to be an ignorant an emotional dipshit who can't admit the obvious truth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does, you're just too stupid to realize it.

Speaking of too stupid...

How 'bout you give my challenge another try -- and this time, not avoid the issue, like a little bitch:

Here's the entire declaration, for reference:
"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
- USSC

"...all instruments that constitute bearable arms..."
What limits does this allow?

 

[Curried Goats]

Speaking of too stupid...

How 'bout you give my challenge another try -- and this time, not avoid the issue, like a little bitch:

Here's the entire declaration, for reference:
"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
- USSC

"...all instruments that constitute bearable arms..."
What limits does this allow?

Listen bitch, I get to frame my argument how I want and you get to frame your argument how you want. I know that limits to the second amendment exist because we don't allow ex felons to own firearms. See that? Simple I'm done. If you want to address that feel free to. Or don't.

 

[Unkotare]

No. Learn a foreign language ...

Why don't YOU start by learning English, then maybe you can visit AMERICA.

 

[BackAgain]

It does, you're just too stupid to realize it.

Liar. You’re not just stupid. You’re quite fully and intentionally dishonest.

 

[Unkotare]

I will never understand why so many US-Americans are never shy.....

You can just say "Americans."

 

[zaangalewa]

You can just say "Americans."

US-Americans are also Americans but Americans are not automatically US-Amercians. I need both expressions. And I do not share your opinion the real world is made in the own brain. The real world is what it is - outside.