Did you hear about the progressive Democrat who loved America?

[thanatos144]

Like the roman republic, a limited sphere of democratic elections, is still democratic elections. It is silly that you are trying to argue that a republic doesn't contain democracy, and that the rhetoric of America being a democratic society went over your head during the cold war.

Curious how when it suits them, that Republicans will proclaim we live in a democracy, as if a vote of 51% justifies legislation banning same-sex marriage. Then the next minute when a minority like LGBT or non-Christians oppose it, Republicans proclaim it as a republic, as if it is an justifiable excuse to deny rights and discriminate. The justification doesn't work of course, the supreme court sees through it.

Unless you believe that everyone is a collective of automatons (rather than a group of individuals), a tyranny of the majority is established when most of eligible voters (in most cases a simple majority) undermine the rights and freedoms of others, and the said minority has not consented to such treatment.

Democracy isn't inherently a tyranny of the majority, anymore than people are inherently authoritarian. The checks and balances in the US work too well, there is political deadlock, and it is difficult to pass laws or get things done with the over the top bureaucracy.

We were nothing like the Roman empire... we were a republic founded on set laws that limit the government. The Roman empire was still a empire that didn't limit the government. We are becoming more like them now because fools like yourself can't see the difference

tapatalk post

I said the Roman Republic not the Roman Empire, and I didn't say that America is the Roman Republic, I said it was inspired and partly based on it. The Roman Republic was founded on laws that limited government i.e. the monarchy was overthrown and a republic was established.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Roman_constitution.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic

The Constitution of the Roman Republic was a set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent.[1] The constitution was largely unwritten and uncodified, and evolved over time. Rather than creating a government that was primarily a democracy (as was ancient Athens), an aristocracy (as was ancient Sparta), or a monarchy (as was Rome before and, in many respects, after the Republic), the Roman constitution mixed these three elements, thus creating three separate branches of government.[2] The democratic element took the form of the legislative assemblies, the aristocratic element took the form of the Senate, and the monarchical element took the form of the many term-limited consuls.[3]

Basically the Roman Republic, was a forebear of the modern republic today - as it reneged on establishing a full democracy* like Athens, instead favoring representation.

*Though it didn't allow non-Athenians and women to vote.

Your not to bright it seems

tapatalk post

 

[AmericanFirst]

Michael Sam is only annoying to some because he was Oppressed YESTERDAY.

What does Sam have to do with this? Oh, he is a black gay guy so that means what exactly? answer, nothing. Sam is only mad because he revealed his deviant sex practices and thought he could benefit from it and now he is getting criticism.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Funny, while I see the Right praising Putin at every opportunity.

Link?

Take your pick -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...-in-the-ufc-octagon-winner-takes-ukraine.html

obamashitforbrains would lose because he is a spineless commie.

 

[jillian]

.

Can someone give me a clear and civil explanation of why a person would want to fundamentally change something they love?

.

you'd have to ask the radical right about that.

Deflection noted.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxDdxzX0kI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxDdxzX0kI[/ame]

Anyone else?

.

no deflection. i'm just bored of rightwingnuts who want to turn my country into a theocrat and kill every right in the bill of rights... except, of course, for the wing nut over inflated idea of what the second amendment does.

but feel free to deflect.

 

[jillian]

Link?

Take your pick -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...-in-the-ufc-octagon-winner-takes-ukraine.html

obamashitforbrains would lose because he is a spineless commie.

only to the mentally ill.

 

[hipeter924]

We were nothing like the Roman empire... we were a republic founded on set laws that limit the government. The Roman empire was still a empire that didn't limit the government. We are becoming more like them now because fools like yourself can't see the difference

tapatalk post

I said the Roman Republic not the Roman Empire, and I didn't say that America is the Roman Republic, I said it was inspired and partly based on it. The Roman Republic was founded on laws that limited government i.e. the monarchy was overthrown and a republic was established.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Roman_constitution.svg
Constitution of the Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution of the Roman Republic was a set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent.[1] The constitution was largely unwritten and uncodified, and evolved over time. Rather than creating a government that was primarily a democracy (as was ancient Athens), an aristocracy (as was ancient Sparta), or a monarchy (as was Rome before and, in many respects, after the Republic), the Roman constitution mixed these three elements, thus creating three separate branches of government.[2] The democratic element took the form of the legislative assemblies, the aristocratic element took the form of the Senate, and the monarchical element took the form of the many term-limited consuls.[3]

Basically the Roman Republic, was a forebear of the modern republic today - as it reneged on establishing a full democracy* like Athens, instead favoring representation.

*Though it didn't allow non-Athenians and women to vote.

Your not to bright it seems

tapatalk post

Don't you mean 'you're' or 'you are'? I took classics so I know what I am talking about, you can't understand democracy or the republic, if you don't even admit where it came from:

Roman revolution

In 133 BC, Rome was a democracy. Little more than a hundred years later it was governed by an emperor. This imperial system has become, for us, a by-word for autocracy and the arbitrary exercise of power.

At the end of the second century BC the Roman people was sovereign. True, rich aristocrats dominated politics. In order to become one of the annually elected 'magistrates' (who in Rome were concerned with all aspects of government, not merely the law) a man had to be very rich.

Even the system of voting was weighted to give more influence to the votes of the wealthy. Yet ultimate power lay with the Roman people. Mass assemblies elected the magistrates, made the laws and took major state decisions. Rome prided itself on being a 'free republic' and centuries later was the political model for the founding fathers of the United States.

BBC - History - The Fall of the Roman Republic A cynic would argue that there is no difference between the Roman Republic and the American Republic as so much political power rests in the hands of the wealthy or the '1%', but that is for another day and another thread.

 

[hipeter924]

Take your pick -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...-in-the-ufc-octagon-winner-takes-ukraine.html

obamashitforbrains would lose because he is a spineless commie.

only to the mentally ill.

I have communist friends, none of them call Obama a communist or a socialist, just a capitalist. I doubt people that call out Obama as being a 'communist' have even read communist literature. As the final stage of communism is an individualist, non-state society, run through direct democracy, with no money.

 

[norwegen]

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com
Thanks for playing. A republic is a form of representative democracy, often with checks and balances which exist to combat a tyranny of the majority.

The American Republic was in fact inspired or partly based on the Roman Republic, and the Greco-Roman architecture is a dead give away. Even the Roman Republic had democratic elections, just they were a lot more controlled by the oligarchy.

In the constitutional republic that was the United States, some citizens were entitled to vote for some officers. Democracy was limited to the lower chamber of the legislature (the Senate would "check the imprudence of democracy" *). And all officers were to govern according to law.

Might you explain to us how a democratic government - a rule of the people - does not amount to a "tyranny of the majority"?

Thank you kindly.


* Alexander Hamilton

Like the roman republic, a limited sphere of democratic elections, is still democratic elections. It is silly that you are trying to argue that a republic doesn't contain democracy, and that the rhetoric of America being a democratic society went over your head during the cold war.

Curious how when it suits them, that Republicans will proclaim we live in a democracy, as if a vote of 51% justifies legislation banning same-sex marriage. Then the next minute when a minority like LGBT or non-Christians oppose it, Republicans proclaim it as a republic, as if it is an justifiable excuse to deny rights and discriminate. The justification doesn't work of course, the supreme court sees through it.

Unless you believe that everyone is a collective of automatons (rather than a group of individuals), a tyranny of the majority is established when most of eligible voters (in most cases a simple majority) undermine the rights and freedoms of others, and the said minority has not consented to such treatment.

Democracy isn't inherently a tyranny of the majority, anymore than people are inherently authoritarian. The checks and balances in the US work too well, there is political deadlock, and it is difficult to pass laws or get things done with the over the top bureaucracy.

Reread my post. I didn't say that a "republic doesn't contain democracy." In fact, I said that that poison was contained in limited doses (in the lower chamber).

You seem to be contradicting yourself about a majority tyranny. If this evil might reside in democracy, as you say, then congratulations; you moonbats have welcomed the unwelcome.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The Right hates everything about America that doesn't comform their view of how it should be; that means they hate half the people, at least, and half of everything about America because at least half of America does not agree with their vision of what America should be.

I know right? How dare they wish this country to stay the way it was that made it a world power and the greatest in the world! Those selfish bastards!

hey, we became the greatest power in the world under FDR and Truman. I'd happily go back to their policies, but I don't think you'd be up for it.

Wait I thought you were a republican back in those days and it's only the recent ulta conservative wing of the party who turned you off.

 

[norwegen]

In the constitutional republic that was the United States, some citizens were entitled to vote for some officers. Democracy was limited to the lower chamber of the legislature (the Senate would "check the imprudence of democracy" *). And all officers were to govern according to law.

Might you explain to us how a democratic government - a rule of the people - does not amount to a "tyranny of the majority"?

Thank you kindly.


* Alexander Hamilton

Like the roman republic, a limited sphere of democratic elections, is still democratic elections. It is silly that you are trying to argue that a republic doesn't contain democracy, and that the rhetoric of America being a democratic society went over your head during the cold war.

Curious how when it suits them, that Republicans will proclaim we live in a democracy, as if a vote of 51% justifies legislation banning same-sex marriage. Then the next minute when a minority like LGBT or non-Christians oppose it, Republicans proclaim it as a republic, as if it is an justifiable excuse to deny rights and discriminate. The justification doesn't work of course, the supreme court sees through it.

Unless you believe that everyone is a collective of automatons (rather than a group of individuals), a tyranny of the majority is established when most of eligible voters (in most cases a simple majority) undermine the rights and freedoms of others, and the said minority has not consented to such treatment.

Democracy isn't inherently a tyranny of the majority, anymore than people are inherently authoritarian. The checks and balances in the US work too well, there is political deadlock, and it is difficult to pass laws or get things done with the over the top bureaucracy.

We were nothing like the Roman empire.... we were a republic founded on set laws that limit the government. The Roman empire was still a empire that didn't limit the government. We are becoming more like them now because fools like yourself can't see the difference

tapatalk post

The Roman Empire was really a monarchy that operated within a republican framework. The United States was a republic that operated within a constitutional framework.

The same, but different. The ruling classes in the Roman Empire were still subject to fancy, its republicanism amounting to an absence of a bloated central authority. In the United States, the leaders were subject to limitations. Procedures, of course, are now extra-Constitutional. Democracy is no longer confined to the House, and popular government has undermined our republicanism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So its fine when the rightwingers lie about "leftwingers" but not OK when I tell a pretty close truth? Tough shit.

ok three points

what do we say thats a lie about leftwingers?

second, when did we say we want to stone fags or women that wear burqas?

third why did the left left INVITE the prez of iran WHO DOES stone fags and women who wear burqas, but then protest condi rice?



its clear you are full of shir

The very topic is a lie
Don't need to say something when laws you want passed or things idiots from your party say such as legit rape say them for you
Who cares if he was invited? Students did it I am sure not "lefties"

Don't get me wrong stoning fags is fine by me but the hypocrisy of the rightwingers here is sickening.

The topic is right on, lefties are socialists first, they hate American and it's restrictions on govt. That's why they invited the prez of iran.

And yeah you do need to learn how to argue and debate. Bring up some examples dickhead.

When did conservatives/republicans want to stone fags or women in burqas?

The funny thing is I gave you a very hypocritical example and you by passed it talking about how you hate hypocrisy.

I mean if you have something to back it up with, lets see otherwise shut the fuck up, you partisan douche.

 

[Siete]

ok three points

what do we say thats a lie about leftwingers?

second, when did we say we want to stone fags or women that wear burqas?

third why did the left left INVITE the prez of iran WHO DOES stone fags and women who wear burqas, but then protest condi rice?



its clear you are full of shir

The very topic is a lie
Don't need to say something when laws you want passed or things idiots from your party say such as legit rape say them for you
Who cares if he was invited? Students did it I am sure not "lefties"

Don't get me wrong stoning fags is fine by me but the hypocrisy of the rightwingers here is sickening.

The topic is right on, lefties are socialists first, they hate American and it's restrictions on govt. That's why they invited the prez of iran.

And yeah you do need to learn how to argue and debate. Bring up some examples dickhead.

When did conservatives/republicans want to stone fags or women in burqas?

The funny thing is I gave you a very hypocritical example and you by passed it talking about how you hate hypocrisy.

I mean if you have something to back it up with, lets see otherwise shut the fuck up, you partisan douche.

your comment is an example of hypocrisy... partisan douche ?

 

[Locke11_21]

Yes, only far right wing conservatives love America.

My leaves for Parris Island in three weeks. He's definitely a liberal and he definitely loves this country. Fuck off.

Well, semper fi and hoorah to your kid if if he makes it. I wish him the best. Regardless of the outcome, it won't take much for him to realize your politics are those of someone who should be institutionalized.

So, where did I ever mention the word "liberal"? I stated "progressive". Do you even know the difference? Or, are you one of those America-hating commies whom hijacked the word liberal as a cover to further your communist/progressive agenda? Go back through my posts, you will see when I attack, I use "leftist", "progressive", "communist", "marxist". If you and your son are truly liberals, yes you can love America. However; you can't be progressive and love America. Progressives are communists with a slower time table. Progressives hate America, and the Democrat party is full of radical moonbat progressives.

If you think I'm Democrat v. Republican, think again. A progressive, regardless of being Democrat or Republicommunist is truly an evil America-hater. Graham, McConjob, Boehner, Cunntor, and McCain all hate America every bit as much as Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosh*t and Reidtard. Regardless of party affiliation, they all hate America. They are all turds in the same sewer.

So Auditor, are you a progressive or a liberal? I've read enough of your posts to be able to ascertain that you are no liberal. I'll leave it at that.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, only far right wing conservatives love America.

My leaves for Parris Island in three weeks. He's definitely a liberal and he definitely loves this country. Fuck off.

Well, semper fi and hoorah to your kid if if he makes it. I wish him the best. Regardless of the outcome, it won't take much for him to realize your politics are those of someone who should be institutionalized.

So, where did I ever mention the word "liberal"? I stated "progressive". Do you even know the difference? Or, are you one of those America-hating commies whom hijacked the word liberal as a cover to further your communist/progressive agenda? Go back through my posts, you will see when I attack, I use "leftist", "progressive", "communist", "marxist". If you and your son are truly liberals, yes you can love America. However; you can't be progressive and love America. Progressives are communists with a slower time table. Progressives hate America, and the Democrat party is full of radical moonbat progressives.

If you think I'm Democrat v. Republican, think again. A progressive, regardless of being Democrat or Republicommunist is truly an evil America-hater. Graham, McConjob, Boehner, Cunntor, and McCain all hate America every bit as much as Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosh*t and Reidtard. Regardless of party affiliation, they all hate America. They are all turds in the same sewer.

So Auditor, are you a progressive or a liberal? I've read enough of your posts to be able to ascertain that you are no liberal. I'll leave it at that.

Wow, guy, I'd say you need help, but I ccan't think of a therapist I dislike enough to wish you upon.

SO let me get this straight. John McCain fights for this country, spends 5 years in a Vietnamese Prison Camp, serves his country for 30 years as a senator, and because he supports a few policies you don't like, he's a "progressive turd" who "Hates America".

But Uncle Tom Cain works as a guy who managed fast food resturants paying people minimum wage and putting thousands of them out of jobs to make a quick profit, and he's a "Hero" in your eyes.

Nice to see you have your priorities straight there, buddy.

 

[Pete7469]

Neither did I.

No I missed that one, but the "progressive" North Korean Utopia proved unicorns did exist.

Unicorns? Existence Proven, Says North Korea | TIME.com

 

[Pete7469]

Yes, only far right wing conservatives love America.

My leaves for Parris Island in three weeks. He's definitely a liberal and he definitely loves this country. Fuck off.

Well, semper fi and hoorah to your kid if if he makes it. I wish him the best. Regardless of the outcome, it won't take much for him to realize your politics are those of someone who should be institutionalized.

So, where did I ever mention the word "liberal"? I stated "progressive". Do you even know the difference? Or, are you one of those America-hating commies whom hijacked the word liberal as a cover to further your communist/progressive agenda? Go back through my posts, you will see when I attack, I use "leftist", "progressive", "communist", "marxist". If you and your son are truly liberals, yes you can love America. However; you can't be progressive and love America. Progressives are communists with a slower time table. Progressives hate America, and the Democrat party is full of radical moonbat progressives.

If you think I'm Democrat v. Republican, think again. A progressive, regardless of being Democrat or Republicommunist is truly an evil America-hater. Graham, McConjob, Boehner, Cunntor, and McCain all hate America every bit as much as Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosh*t and Reidtard. Regardless of party affiliation, they all hate America. They are all turds in the same sewer.

So Auditor, are you a progressive or a liberal? I've read enough of your posts to be able to ascertain that you are no liberal. I'll leave it at that.

Marines don't let treasonous bed wetters like bradley manning to slip through.

 

[rightwinger]

Neither did I.

Progressive Democrats gave us

Social Security
Medicare
Obamacare
Environmental Protections
Labor laws
Affirmative Action
Handicapped access

All opposed by Conservatives

 

[mudwhistle]

Look at the difference between these two presidents.

One loves his country and loves his troops that he commands. Another hates everything his country stands for and could care less about the troops he puts in harm's way. Listen to the speeches, and listen to the feedback from these wonderful guys in the audience. Listen to the mutual respect they have for each other where one president is concerned and the total lack of it with another. One speaks from the heart, and the other speaks from a teleprompter. The tepid response after Obama's speech was cut out in the White House Gov version of the speech for obvious reasons:

 

[Pete7469]

Neither did I.

Progressive Democrats gave us

Social Security
Medicare
Obamacare
Environmental Protections
Labor laws
Affirmative Action
Handicapped access

All opposed by Conservatives

Social Security Bankrupt.

Medicare Riddled with corruption, fraud waste and abuse.

Obamacare Speaks for itself.

Environmental Protections Yeah, only prog tools cared about the environment.

Labor laws That keep kids out of jobs so that illegals can take them.

Affirmative Action So that race based promotions get oxygen thieves promoted rather than people who have merit.

Handicapped access Another bullshit bed wetter cause that does more harm than good.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTAJrF4wGIA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTAJrF4wGIA[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

May 31, 2014
Kerry's Definition of 'Success'
Richard Butrick

Secretary of State John Kerry declared Thursday that the Obama administration’s policy of “engagement” has had four notable successes.

(1) Prevented Soviet takeover of Ukraine

Kerry told PBS. “I mean, if you look at what has happened in Ukraine, the president led an effort to try to keep Europe unified with the United States, to put difficult sanctions on the table. Europe wasn’t thrilled with that. But they came along. That was leadership. And the president succeeded in having an impact ultimately, together with the Europeans, on the choices that face President Putin.”

(2) Prevented Assad from using chemical weapons

“In Syria, the president obviously made his decision to strike Syria, and appropriately sent that decision to Congress. Congress didn’t want to move. But we came up with another solution, which was get all of those chemical weapons out, rather than just have one or two days of strikes … the president has now succeeded in getting 92 percent of those weapons out of Syria.”

(3) Prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons

“In addition, the president has engaged with Iran. We were on a course to absolute collision, where they were building a nuclear system and the world was standing opposed to that. But the president put in place a series of sanctions, a capacity to be able to bring Iran to the table… We are now in the middle of negotiations. Everyone will agree the sanctions regime has held together. The weapons, the nuclear program has been frozen and rolled backwards. And we now have expanded the amount of time that Iran might have for a breakout. That’s a success.”

(4) Prevented collapse of the Afghan war effort

Kerry claimed that the Afghan war was “adrift and in danger” in 2009 but has now had a successful outcome: “We have done it. They had a very successful election. And they provided the security and they did the planning, and they did the execution. That is exactly what the president is now trying to do with respect to the final steps.”

Kerry is essentially arguing that smart diplomacy has worked. Instead of the go-it-alone mentality of the Bush administration followed by blustering in with military force and shooting from the hip, smart diplomacy of “engagement” has had success. The engagement/prevention policy is basically just a Pavlovian reward/punishment policy involving (1) mustering support from the “global community” and (2) using economic and political policy to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.

The prevention claim is generally a weaselly argument. Has the Obama administration prevented another 9/11 type terrorist attack? Have they prevented an all-out war between Iranian Shiite forces and Saudi Sunni forces? Have they prevented collapse of the U.S. dollar? Prevented double digit unemployment? If X does not happen it does not thereby mean that the policies in place prevented X from happening. Moreover, having “prevented” something from happening does not mean that it will not happen in the future.

Prevented Putin from taking over the Ukraine? Prove first that that was his intention and that the administration engagement/prevention policy was the reason. Prevented Assad from going full bore with chemical weapons? Prove first that that was his intention and that the pariah sanctions stopped him. Prevented a collapse of Afghanistan into an ungovernable chaos? Is that where Afghanistan was headed in 2009? Prove it. Prevented Iran from continuing its nuclear program?

Is Kerry implying that current administration policies ensure that in the future Putin will not chip away at the Ukraine and other former Soviet satellites? That Afghanistan will not collapse into chaos? That Iran will not attempt to build nuclear capabilities?

A little early, perhaps, for a victory lap?

The real constant and hallmark of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is backing the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad. Perhaps Kerry should tout all those successes backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria and Libya. Backing Morsi? That has really endeared us to the Egyptians. Blog: Kerry's Definition of 'Success'​