Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.
LOL.....and where did you get that idea?
The term 'democrat' dates back to the Democratic Republican Party. We're a democratic republic. Or more accurately, a democratic constitutional republic. We use democracy, but we temper it with the guarantee of rights.
SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
Incorrect.SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
Seriously, there's no point in talking to Kosh. He comes on every few weeks to bait folks endlessly with one liners. Let me give you the summary of the Kosh experience:
"Far Left". "Left Drone". "Narrative".
There you go, that's as good as it gets. Its the same shit, each time, every time. There's no conversation to be had.
Of all the idiots and assholes I have encountered here, Kosh earned the honor of being the first person on my ignore list.
My favorite are his posts that are one sentence long and contain at the very least 3 mentions of "drones" or "far left." I've seen bots with more originality.
And another far left drone checks in!
Predictable as the rising sun.
I may waste pages arguing with JoeB. But I am not having Kosh clutter my screen or stretch the threads out. It is a waste of my time.
Of all the idiots and assholes I have encountered here, Kosh earned the honor of being the first person on my ignore list.
My favorite are his posts that are one sentence long and contain at the very least 3 mentions of "drones" or "far left." I've seen bots with more originality.
And another far left drone checks in!
Predictable as the rising sun.
I may waste pages arguing with JoeB. But I am not having Kosh clutter my screen or stretch the threads out. It is a waste of my time.
I had forgotten what a troll he is. I don't put anyone on ignore, but it is easy enough to ignore the dreck.
you are making a distinction without a difference....SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
Incorrect.SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
you are making a distinction without a difference....SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
Incorrect.SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority
One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.
Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists.And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.
you are making a distinction without a difference....SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.
In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.
That is certainly a distinction and a difference.
Incorrect.SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority
One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.
And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.
you are making a distinction without a difference....SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.
In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.
That is certainly a distinction and a difference.
it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .
And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.
Incorrect.SLYHUNTER SAID:
“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”
The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority
One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.
And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.
no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
yesyou are making a distinction without a difference....we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.
In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.
That is certainly a distinction and a difference.
it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .
And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.
Are you referring to the Bill of Rights?
yesyou are making a distinction without a difference....No. In a true democracy, the majority can legally vote away the rights of the minority.
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.
In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.
That is certainly a distinction and a difference.
it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .
And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.
Are you referring to the Bill of Rights?
'Incorrect.we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority
One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.
And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.
no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...
Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?
And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.
yesyou are making a distinction without a difference....
regardless as Jefferson said the only sure guarantor of the rights of man is submiting to the will of the majority
No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.
In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.
That is certainly a distinction and a difference.
it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .
And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.
Are you referring to the Bill of Rights?
Then I think you're framing the question incorrectly. The issue between those who wanted a Bill of RIghts and those who didn't wasn't if the rights existed. But if the rights needed to be enumerated. Both sides recognized that the rights existed. Those who pushed for a Bill of Rights felt they needed to be explicitly written down. Those who opposed it worried that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY those rights existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise on the issue.
And thank god they wrote it. As the concern that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY enumerated rights existed was utterly valid. To this day, in this very thread, you've seen folks make that very mistake. Insisting that since 'marriage isn't in the constitution' that marriage isn't a right.
'Incorrect.
A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.
Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.
no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority
One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.
And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.
no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...
Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?
And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.
The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.
