Merkel is now the leader of the free world

So more of democratic republic is what that article is referring too. From the strict definition of a republic or democracy they are two separate forms of government.

Where could you find a democracy on planet Earth? Just curious.
 
How so? A republic the majority cannot take away certain inalienable rights. We govern by rule of law. A democracy the majority can impose its will on the minority.

lol

Not the 'inalienable rights' bullpucky again. Find one in the BofR or Constitution.
 
Where could you find a democracy on planet Earth? Just curious.

This is what I love about the ignorance of the right. The closer to 'local control', the closer to pure democracy and the more they love it.

Pure democracy? Two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for lunch.
 
This is what I love about the ignorance of the right. The closer to 'local control', the closer to pure democracy and the more they love it.

Pure democracy? Two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for lunch.

Ignorance of the right? It is the left that is melting down about "democracy" not happening this election. Think about that fender head.
 
Seems to me that you simply don't know what a democracy is.

Oh. I see. Please oh educated one, point out any true democracy on this planet today. Not a parliamentary democracy, or other forms of government combined. Just a true Democracy.
 
Oh. I see. Please oh educated one, point out any true democracy on this planet today. Not a parliamentary democracy, or other forms of government combined. Just a true Democracy.

You mean a pure democracy, not a true democracy. A form of democracy is a true democracy. Just as America is not a purely capitalist society, it's also not a pure democracy. It does meet the definition of modern uses of the term democracy, which is why it's called a democracy while still being a republic.
 
You mean a pure democracy, not a true democracy. A form of democracy is a true democracy. Just as America is not a purely capitalist society, it's also not a pure democracy. It does meet the definition of modern uses of the term democracy, which is why it's called a democracy while still being a republic.

Actually it is called a direct democracy. And that has nothing to do with "modern" definitions. There is only one definition for it. Always has been. It does not change based on what someone is feeling that day.
 
Actually it is called a direct democracy. And that has nothing to do with "modern" definitions. There is only one definition for it. Always has been. It does not change based on what someone is feeling that day.

Well, who is talking about a direct democracy, then, Mr. Stickler? And yes, the English language evolves. But then conservatives don't believe in evolution. Or global warming. Or most facts.
 
Well, who is talking about a direct democracy, then, Mr. Stickler? And yes, the English language evolves. But then conservatives don't believe in evolution. Or global warming. Or most facts.

I can see when it comes to fact or definition, you are a modern day liberal. Just stomp your feet, hold your breath and hope someone agrees with you when you are clearly wrong. A Democracy has one meaning. A Republic has one meaning. In their classical form and definition they are not synonymous, no matter how much you try to make it so. Hence the reason for combined forms of both types of governments. At least get your shit straight before attempting to act like you know what you are talking about.
 
Good old Gomer. Dumb as a rock and just loves to prove it. You really need attention huh?

Can't refute my claim, can you? So many of you RW tards keep coming back to 'inalienable rights', yet you fail to identify a single one. Still waiting.
 
Back
Top