George Stephanopoulos Shuts Down Interview With Sen. J.D. Vance

IBDaMann said:
Post #73, I crushed your lie. By the way, you don't lie very well. Your feigned "anger" merely detracts from your delivery. It's fairly obvious that you don't believe what you have been ordered to regurgitate.

Blow me.
Click to expand...

Where did you effectively refute every dictionarie’s definitions of the terms I proved exist

Instead of blowing you away in the wind like the lightweight you are



I’ll just drop every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world on your head



Just as many times as it takes to stop you from lying about the terms incessantly
 
At the time they wrote the constitution the word Democracy boy meant Pure Democracy


In creating a completely new form of government

the founders actually changed the need to redefine the term
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Nah, I'm not asking for an explanation of any of those words... just for the words "democratic experiment". But it's obvious that you have no clue what that means and just parrot it as a buzzword. It makes you angry when I keep reminding you of this truth.
Click to expand...

If that makes you feel better about your miserable life...

...fine with me.

In my opinion, you are an asshole backing an asshole.
 
evince said:
In a direct democracy,
Click to expand...
Nope. You are one sorry, gullible, uneducated butt-rape victim. There is no such thing as a "direct" democracy vs. an "indirect" democracy. There is only a democracy. How did you ever come to HATE school so much that you just tuned out all of your education?

evince said:
In a representative democracy,
Click to expand...
There is no such thing. You are trying to hijack the word "republic" and replace it with the word "democracy" which is not a republic.

evince said:
.. the people choose governing officials through elections to do so.
Click to expand...
This is the representational part of the republic that does not exist in a democracy. Now let's put the final nail in the coffin of your brainless notion. Where in a democracy is the protection of individual rights against majority vote/wishes? That would preclude majority rule and thus preclude "democracy."

evince said:
Features of democracy oftentimes include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.
Click to expand...
Nope. These are all features of a republic that protects individual liberties. Democracy has never changed. It still means mob rule, or government by the majority, the minority/individuals be damned. Democracies devolve into chaos, out of which a tyrannical oligarchy emerges, and that's what all Marxists want. That's why all countries with the word "Democratic" in the name are socialist, and why all political parties with the word "democratic" in the name are either socialist or communist. All Marxists demand "democracy" because they abhor individuals having any rights (it represents unacceptable limits on the authority of the tyrannical government). Hence, Marxists HATE republics and don't want We the People, or anyone for that matter, thinking of the US as a republic, especially as one that has a Constitution that protects individual liberties.
 
evince said:
Where did you effectively refute every dictionarie’s definitions of the terms I proved exist
Click to expand...
I only needed to refute your argument. You don't speak for every dictionary and encyclopedia.

@ everyone else: please note evince's presumption of speaking for all repositories of knowledge. He's one of the stupidest people on the entire internet and yet he clings to the fantasy that he represents KNOWLEDGE. Of course he's a leftist. All he has is personal insults and his omniscience fallacies.

@ evince: In the future, try to avoid claiming that documents read something other than what they read. I know you don't think things through and that it never occurred to you ... but others can actually read what the documents really say, e.g. the US Constitution.

In the meantime, pacify yourself on a donkey dick.
 
evince said:
At the time they wrote the constitution the word Democracy boy meant Pure Democracy
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as democracy purity. The meaning of "democracy" has not changed. Yes, it has been hijacked often, but never changed.
 
Pure democracy


I’ve linked to dictionaries and encyclopedias definitions of the types of democracy


Read them
 
IBDaMann said:
I only needed to refute your argument. You don't speak for every dictionary and encyclopedia.

@ everyone else: please note evince's presumption of speaking for all repositories of knowledge. He's one of the stupidest people on the entire internet and yet he clings to the fantasy that he represents KNOWLEDGE. Of course he's a leftist. All he has is personal insults and his omniscience fallacies.

@ evince: In the future, try to avoid claiming that documents read something other than what they read. I know you don't think things through and that it never occurred to you ... but others can actually read what the documents really say, e.g. the US Constitution.

In the meantime, pacify yourself on a donkey dick.
Click to expand...

They all define the terms the same idiot
 
evince said:
They all define the terms the same idiot
Click to expand...
Why do you EVADE the Constitution when discussing the republic it establishes?

You are one seriously stupid fuck. You think the Supreme Court occasionally decides whether laws are unencyclopedial, and that the President get his Executive power from the dictionary. Too funny. Tell me more about how how our republic is defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias. I can't wait to hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top