Freedom, Democracy - definitions.

[Balu]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[indago]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

The definitions change as we move along through life, and as our handlers provide us with new definitions...

[fj1200]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

Freedom is relative but we have free markets, freedom of movement, freedom of most things in daily life. Also I'm not sure who's using 'democracy' as we don't live in one, we live in a democratic republic. :)

[aboutime]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif


Balu. FIRST, and FOREMOST. You are NOT my friend here. Your patronizing methods do not fool anyone.

Asking questions as you have. Can be answered....ONLINE. Just go to GOOGLE, or WIKIPEDIA where you will get the answers YOU do NOT want.
Otherwise. Your attempts to play "GOTCHA" by asking such questions is just sooooo Predictably Propagandized.

[Drummond]

Freedom is relative but we have free markets, freedom of movement, freedom of most things in daily life. Also I'm not sure who's using 'democracy' as we don't live in one, we live in a democratic republic. :)

Two points.

ONE: You've (along with a friend of yours, apparently 'recently departed') called me 'nitpicky' elsewhere on this forum. But surely part of your answer is, ALSO ? You say ...


I'm not sure who's using 'democracy' as we don't live in one, we live in a democratic republic.

You're saying that the word 'democratic' is included purely as a technicality ? And that democracy isn't involved ?

Definition of 'republic' ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic


noun

a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

You think this FAILS to describe democratic process ?

I suspect that you're confusing this with the more Left wing concept of democracy, which is NOT democracy, and to which you adhere ?

TWO: 'FREEDOM IS RELATIVE' ?

Relative to what, in your estimation, which counters it ?

Since you seem not to have any great faith in democracy, FJ (.. and in truth, what Leftie does ?) ... would you care to explain yourself further ?

[aboutime]

My reason for telling Balu what I did earlier was probably in defense of a large percentage of Americans. Which I'm almost sure, Balu knows...as most of us here know; how Millions of Americans ACTUALLY are not Smart enough to define the words FREEDOM, and DEMOCRACY.

Sadly. Based on how Low our Educational system really is...that so many deny. Far too many Americans have NO IDEA how they even earned the FREEDOMS they have, and take for granted today.
As for the word Democracy. If Americans really understood, or knew the definition of that word. They would see how a REAL SOCIALIST government actually runs their life.

So. I also understood how Balu...our new, resident PROPAGANDA specialist was enjoying the fact that he could get that GOTCHA. Problem is. The members of DP are smarter, and far more knowledgeable about such things. And that's NOT GOOD for Balu.

[Balu]

To clarify - I am asking about your PERSONAL understanding the meaning of the words.
Personally to my clever and knowledgeable "street-street, avenue-avenue minded" American friend aboutime, THE protector of all Americans - Friends, Partners etc. may be just a form of a speech when addressing to people. So, personally you, DO understand it THIS way, my DEAR American FRIEND.
Sincerely Yours,
Balu.
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

P.S.
Please be advised, I dedicated my life to the things much more useful and valuable for my country than propaganda among Americans. And as far as you are a very clever person I would tell you that there are three types of propaganda - white, gray and black.
Examples:
1. Magazine America in Russian - white;
2. "The voice of America" broadcasting in Russian for Russia - gray;
3. Fox news "Breaking News" from Russia - black.

P.P.S.
We are really missing our favorite Mrs. Psakis. Since she left the News from the USA became dull. We've already been accustomed to a joy she brought to our daily life. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[aboutime]

To clarify - I am asking about your PERSONAL understanding the meaning of the words.
Personally to my clever and knowledgeable "street-street, avenue-avenue minded" American friend aboutime, THE protector of all Americans - Friends, Partners etc. may be just a form of a speech when addressing to people. So, personally you, DO understand it THIS way, my DEAR American FRIEND.
Sincerely Yours,
Balu.
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

P.S.
Please be advised, I dedicated my life to the things much more useful and valuable for my country than propaganda among Americans. And as far as you are a very clever person I would tell you that there are three types of propaganda - white, gray and black. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif



I guess you need to read, or TURN UP the volume so you can hear what I said earlier.

YOU are NOT my friend. And I have no reason to explain anything to you. I dedicated 30 Years of my life DEFENDING MY COUNTRY against your kind of DENIED Propaganda machine.
REPEAT....YOU are NOT my friend. No matter how many times you try to convince yourself, by sounding like an American Liberal, Democrat on Steroids.

[tailfins]

Balu. FIRST, and FOREMOST. You are NOT my friend here. Your patronizing methods do not fool anyone.

Asking questions as you have. Can be answered....ONLINE. Just go to GOOGLE, or WIKIPEDIA where you will get the answers YOU do NOT want.
Otherwise. Your attempts to play "GOTCHA" by asking such questions is just sooooo Predictably Propagandized.


To clarify - I am asking about your PERSONAL understanding the meaning of the words.
Personally to my clever and knowledgeable "street-street, avenue-avenue minded" American friend aboutime, THE protector of all Americans - Friends, Partners etc. may be just a form of a speech when addressing to people. So, personally you, DO understand it THIS way, my DEAR American FRIEND.
Sincerely Yours,
Balu.

I could use some friends. Balu, I just sent you an official Debate Policy friend request. I will answer your question as best as I can. America was never meant to be a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic with guaranteed, God-given inalienable rights that even the majority cannot away.

[Balu]

I guess you need to read, or TURN UP the volume so you can hear what I said earlier.

YOU are NOT my friend. And I have no reason to explain anything to you. I dedicated 30 Years of my life DEFENDING MY COUNTRY against your kind of DENIED Propaganda machine.
REPEAT....YOU are NOT my friend. No matter how many times you try to convince yourself, by sounding like an American Liberal, Democrat on Steroids.

So you are a professional propagandist. Thank you for your honest confessions given by your own will, my Dear American Friend. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/laugh3.gif

[Balu]

I could use some friends. Balu, I just sent you an official Debate Policy friend request. I will answer your question as best as I can. America was never meant to be a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic with guaranteed, God-given inalienable rights that even the majority cannot away.
Thank you for the reply with your personal thoughts. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[aboutime]

So you are a professional propagandist. Thank you for your honest confessions given by your own will, my Dear American Friend. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/laugh3.gif


You really ARE as ignorant as I thought. Twisting words to suit your own denial as a propaganda tool is laughable. And you still have major comprehension problems, not understanding that calling me Your Dear American Friend is nothing more than your own method of slapping, and disrespecting others.
I feel sorry for you. CHECK THAT. No I don't!

[fj1200]

Since you seem not to have any great faith in democracy...

Is this another thread where I have to deal with your ridiculous imagination and questions you don't care about the answer to?

[red states rule]

Two points.

ONE: You've (along with a friend of yours, apparently 'recently departed') called me 'nitpicky' elsewhere on this forum. But surely part of your answer is, ALSO ? You say ...



You're saying that the word 'democratic' is included purely as a technicality ? And that democracy isn't involved ?

Definition of 'republic' ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic



You think this FAILS to describe democratic process ?

I suspect that you're confusing this with the more Left wing concept of democracy, which is NOT democracy, and to which you adhere ?

TWO: 'FREEDOM IS RELATIVE' ?

Relative to what, in your estimation, which counters it ?

Since you seem not to have any great faith in democracy, FJ (.. and in truth, what Leftie does ?) ... would you care to explain yourself further ?

It is amazing watching the Obama lap dogs and lovers of big government seem to think they alone rule on what the serfs tending the field can and cannot do.

The US Constitution LIMITS the power of government and that is why liberals area always trying to either do end runs around it, or ignore it. Obama and his arrogance has lit a fuse and it is slowly burning down. If the government continues to expand its power over the people, that fuse will ignite a massive the stored up anger

It seems Obama, Dems, and some R's along with the paper pushers in departments like the EPA and IRS have forgotten who they work for. As well as the owners manual for the country - the US COnstitution

[fj1200]

It is amazing watching the Obama lap dogs and lovers of big government seem to think they alone rule on what the serfs tending the field can and cannot do.

The US Constitution LIMITS the power of government and that is why liberals area always trying to either do end runs around it, or ignore it. Obama and his arrogance has lit a fuse and it is slowly burning down. If the government continues to expand its power over the people, that fuse will ignite a massive the stored up anger

It seems Obama, Dems, and some R's along with the paper pushers in departments like the EPA and IRS have forgotten who they work for. As well as the owners manual for the country - the US COnstitution

:confused: You forgot to ask how he feels about pragmatic realism that sometimes requires big government solutions. :)

[aboutime]

:confused: You forgot to ask how he feels about pragmatic realism that sometimes requires big government solutions. :)


fj. Now you really sound like Obama, or any one of millions of Liberals who always believe Only Govt. has all the solutions. Being pragmatic, and saying Government at the same time IS an oxymoron for MORONS.

[Gunny]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

The US is a Constitutional, Federal Republic, not a democracy.

And we lost our freedom in April, 1865.

[jimnyc]

My Dear American friends!
You often use these terms. I would be very grateful if you could explain what is the sense you put in these words? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

What the hell, Balu, you can be my friend. But that means you bring the vodka and women, or the friendship is over quickly! :)

---

Freedom means we can decide our own fates almost 100%. I have freedom to say what I want. To choose what religion I want. What job I want. No one decides me life and fate for me. Government won't suppress me, force me into a religion and other unsavory things. My government won't tell me what I do throughout my day. I rise and fall under my own ambitions and failures.

I believe democracy is what helped us get here and stay here. This whole thing is continually decided by freedom, the free people. We decide our government, for better or worse. If worse, the people can change it. I think for the most part, the people drive who makes the decisions. It's faulty at times, and time consuming, and expensive... but I'll take our way of life over anything else I've seen in this world. And nope, that's not an insult to other nations, just the love of my own country. :)

[aboutime]

Another Pro-Putin Propagandist who LOVES Putin.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html

[fj1200]

An experiment, will I get an honest answer? Stay tuned.


fj. Now you really sound like Obama, or any one of millions of Liberals who always believe Only Govt. has all the solutions. Being pragmatic, and saying Government at the same time IS an oxymoron for MORONS.

Please indicate where I have ever said that "only government has all the solutions."

[Drummond]

Is this another thread where I have to deal with your ridiculous imagination and questions you don't care about the answer to?

Ah, another example of a chance to debate, turned into an opportunity to dish out some abuse, instead.

Here's a thought.

GIVE IT A REST, FOR ONCE.

If you're not interested in debate, be consistent with what you claim is true for you, and don't respond to my posts.

[fj1200]

:blah:

Hey moron, why should I respond to your posts when you have no interest in the actual answers and you start from your standard point of ignorance?


Since you seem not to have any great faith in democracy, FJ (.. and in truth, what Leftie does ?) ... would you care to explain yourself further ?

Let me know if you ever want to have a rational discussion. I'm pretty sure you're so screwed in the head by me that it'll never happen.

[aboutime]

An experiment, will I get an honest answer? Stay tuned.



Please indicate where I have ever said that "only government has all the solutions."


Okay. How bout this. I will INDICATE by copying your words above. See if they match.

"only government has all the solutions."

I hope you were able to read YOUR WORDS from that quote. So...there!

[fj1200]

Okay. How bout this. I will INDICATE by copying your words above. See if they match.

"only government has all the solutions."

I hope you were able to read YOUR WORDS from that quote. So...there!

I didn't think that I'd get one. Did you notice that I put quotes around those words because that was the allegation in your post? So where have I ever indicated such? Surely my many thousands of posts here over many years I would have posted something, anything, that you'd be able to find to back up your posit.

[aboutime]

I didn't think that I'd get one. Did you notice that I put quotes around those words because that was the allegation in your post? So where have I ever indicated such? Surely my many thousands of posts here over many years I would have posted something, anything, that you'd be able to find to back up your posit.

Wrong again fj. You put the quote in YOUR QUESTION. Therefor, I used it by copying YOUR question. And that ended up as YOU saying it in the post.
You wanna play games. I have fun doing so. But you can't take the football home in this game because you are so dumb, and easily forced to deny everything. Besides. YOU aren't important enough to worry about here anyway.

[fj1200]

Wrong again fj. You put the quote in YOUR QUESTION. Therefor, I used it by copying YOUR question. And that ended up as YOU saying it in the post.
You wanna play games. I have fun doing so. But you can't take the football home in this game because you are so dumb, and easily forced to deny everything. Besides. YOU aren't important enough to worry about here anyway.

:facepalm99: This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[aboutime]

:facepalm99: This would be funny if it weren't so sad.


Why. I find everything you say, both funny, and sad. I wish I could feel sorry for you. But that wouldn't be true.

[fj1200]

Why. I find everything you say, both funny, and sad. I wish I could feel sorry for you. But that wouldn't be true.

Question: Is an experiment a failure when I get expected results? I suppose not, it just confirms that all you can do is spout off but at least your happy in your delusions.

[tailfins]

Question: Is an experiment a failure when I get expected results? I suppose not, it just confirms that all you can do is spout off but at least your happy in your delusions.

An experiment is a failure if it doesn't yield additional information. Do you think AT is happy about ANYTHING?

[fj1200]

An experiment is a failure if it doesn't yield additional information.

Thanks, by that definition; a failure.

[aboutime]

Question: Is an experiment a failure when I get expected results? I suppose not, it just confirms that all you can do is spout off but at least your happy in your delusions.


I'm about to take other members advice about you. But, I'm gonna miss the entertainment. I'll even give you the LAST WORD, to help make you feel as superior as you want. But I'm not alone. You seem to forget, other members here have the same impression of you. So, we can all laugh together. AT YOUR EXPENSE, no matter how you try to defend, or deny it.

[fj1200]

I'm about to take other members advice about you.

I hope that means what I think it means.

[Balu]

What the hell, Balu, you can be my friend. But that means you bring the vodka and women, or the friendship is over quickly! :)

---

Freedom means we can decide our own fates almost 100%. I have freedom to say what I want. To choose what religion I want. What job I want. No one decides me life and fate for me. Government won't suppress me, force me into a religion and other unsavory things. My government won't tell me what I do throughout my day. I rise and fall under my own ambitions and failures.

I believe democracy is what helped us get here and stay here. This whole thing is continually decided by freedom, the free people. We decide our government, for better or worse. If worse, the people can change it. I think for the most part, the people drive who makes the decisions. It's faulty at times, and time consuming, and expensive... but I'll take our way of life over anything else I've seen in this world. And nope, that's not an insult to other nations, just the love of my own country. :)
Thank you for your detailed answer, Sir! Sorry, if I unintentionally offended you by this addressing to you too. ( joke!) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[tailfins]

Balu: The problem with democracy is that it leads to raiding the treasury at the ballot box. To the people that think Hillary Clinton cannot win: Don't underestimate the power of free stuff.

[Balu]

Balu: The problem with democracy is that it leads to raiding the treasury at the ballot box. To the people that think Hillary Clinton cannot win: Don't underestimate the power of free stuff.You see, my deep conviction is that if a person has no DIRECT influence on the results of voting, and is not able to nominate himself a candidate in President and Parliament elections, if ANY political Party is not able to be presented in a Parliament, it is too early to speak about democracy at all.
You can see how it is managed in Russia.

http://cikrf.ru/eng/law/

Example: Every citizen of the Russian Federation with a passive voting right, after the official publication (publication) of the decision to call the election of the President of the Russian Federation, has the right to nominate himself a candidate for the post of President of the Russian Federation.

[red states rule]

I'm about to take other members advice about you. But, I'm gonna miss the entertainment. I'll even give you the LAST WORD, to help make you feel as superior as you want. But I'm not alone. You seem to forget, other members here have the same impression of you. So, we can all laugh together. AT YOUR EXPENSE, no matter how you try to defend, or deny it.

AT unless you have a PhD in child psychology, it is impossible to carry on any discussion with FU or DMP. Both believe they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. I suspect as they log on they are thinking how they are lowering themselves to associate with the peasants that refuse to worship them blind obedience

It is best to ignore them and pray they get the help they both so desperately need

[aboutime]

AT unless you have a PhD in child psychology, it is impossible to carry on any discussion with FU or DMP. Both believe they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. I suspect as they log on they are thinking how they are lowering themselves to associate with the peasants that refuse to worship them blind obedience

It is best to ignore them and pray they get the help they both so desperately need


I know, and I totally agree with you. But, as for praying they get help. No need. I have never felt any need to pray for the perpetually ignorant, dumb, stupid, and arrogant beyond belief!:laugh:

[tailfins]

AT unless you have a PhD in child psychology, it is impossible to carry on any discussion with FU or DMP. Both believe they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. I suspect as they log on they are thinking how they are lowering themselves to associate with the peasants that refuse to worship them blind obedience

It is best to ignore them and pray they get the help they both so desperately need

What if I minored in Abnormal Psychology? Will that do the job? Besides, being nuts is an art. I'm always interested in becoming more accomplished. :stooges:

[aboutime]

What if I minored in Abnormal Psychology? Will that do the job? Besides, being nuts is an art. I'm always interested in becoming more accomplished. :stooges:


You could have stopped at the ABNORMAL accomplishment!

[Drummond]

Hey moron, why should I respond to your posts when you have no interest in the actual answers and you start from your standard point of ignorance?

... er'm .... YOU JUST DID ... !!

It's that attention deficit disorder kicking in again, eh, FJ ?

Sad.


Let me know if you ever want to have a rational discussion. I'm pretty sure you're so screwed in the head by me that it'll never happen.

What I am, FJ, is disgusted by your dishonesty.

Here's one particularly ludicrous example. Elsewhere, you posted ....


It has been quite awhile since you've been deserving of my taking the time to respond to you

.. but, when do you ever FAIL to .. ???

That your responses are so very low-grade, is neither here nor there. They ARE responses, nonetheless.

It would be illogical of you to expend so much time and effort in diligently responding, if you didn't think it worthwhile to do so.

I shall deal with another example of your dishonesty momentarily, FJ ...

[Drummond]

:confused: You forgot to ask how he feels about pragmatic realism that sometimes requires big government solutions. :)

Nobody has any need to ask me about this. Indeed, instead of wasting time trying to refer this to me, you could've easily answered this yourself !!

... I mean, you 'are', as you (insultingly) claim, 'The One True Thatcherite' .. YES ??

As I've repeatedly posted - and as is easily provable - Margaret Thatcher, while she much preferred a 'small Government' emphasis to be applied where possible, on occasions she believed that only a Big Government approach could possibly suffice. Her Premiership is characterised by her taking such an approach, on multiple occasions.

Now .. you, as 'The One True Thatcherite', would ...

1. Know this yourself, and ..

2. BE LOYAL TO THAT PRINCIPLE.

After all, as 'The One True Thatcherite', how could you fail to be the best pro-Thatcherite adherent to be found anywhere ??

So, you've dug yourself a bit of a hole. Haven't you ?

Either you're a believer in the pragmatism that Mrs Thatcher practiced, and you agree with it ... or, you DON'T, in which case your alleged 'bona fides' are fiction. If you truly believe in small Government solutions, 'come-what-may', then your 'Thatcherite' credentials are A FRAUD.

OR ... are you LYING when you CLAIM to believe, always, in Small Government ?

Make up your mind. WHICH IS TRUE ABOUT YOU, AND WHICH IS UNTRUTH ?

This is why debating with you is a pointless exercise (your abusiveness notwithstanding). You REFUSE to represent yourself HONESTLY.

[tailfins]

... I mean, you 'are', as you (insultingly) claim, 'The One True Thatcherite' .. YES ??

NOW I understand why he infuriates you so much. I just now figured that out.

[DragonStryk72]

Two points.

ONE: You've (along with a friend of yours, apparently 'recently departed') called me 'nitpicky' elsewhere on this forum. But surely part of your answer is, ALSO ? You say ...



You're saying that the word 'democratic' is included purely as a technicality ? And that democracy isn't involved ?

Definition of 'republic' ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic



You think this FAILS to describe democratic process ?

I suspect that you're confusing this with the more Left wing concept of democracy, which is NOT democracy, and to which you adhere ?

Well, actually, it's the republic part that is specifically important. After all, democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

By moving it to a democratic republic (Meaning that the general populace votes for representatives), it changes that equation. There are other forms of Republics, based on who has the right to vote. For instance, Legions in Rome could actually elect the Emperor... which led to a point where there were 4 Caesars at one time.


TWO: 'FREEDOM IS RELATIVE' ?

Relative to what, in your estimation, which counters it ?

Since you seem not to have any great faith in democracy, FJ (.. and in truth, what Leftie does ?) ... would you care to explain yourself further ?

Well, it is relative. Let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment in two States, NY and TX. Texas has open carry, whereas NY barely has concealed carry, and you need a specific licensing for it. That alters the degree of freedom with regards to firearms ownership.

Then we can also use the same two states to determine freedom relative to ability to make a living. Both States have a major city, but TX has a far lower taxation rate, and cost of living than NY, and thus, you can make less in TX, and still be more free than you would be in NY making the same amount.

And actually, over here, the liberals are INSANELY thrilled with straight democracy. No, no, really. Watch every election cycle we ever have where a Dem is involved, and you'll see it: Every time, all they do is promise whatever they figure the most people will vote for, so if they see that minorities have solid enough numbers for getting them in, guess who's getting pitched to?

Over here, liberals and dem are almost to the point of pure mob rule democracy.

[fj1200]

AT unless you have a PhD in child psychology, it is impossible to carry on any discussion with FU or DMP. Both believe they are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. I suspect as they log on they are thinking how they are lowering themselves to associate with the peasants that refuse to worship them blind obedience

It is best to ignore them and pray they get the help they both so desperately need

:facepalm99: Darin could debate you under the bus if you were to ever actually have a debate and in true knucklehead fashion you back the guy who can't even find the bus.

[aboutime]

:facepalm99: Darin could debate you under the bus if you were to ever actually have a debate and in true knucklehead fashion you back the guy who can't even find the bus.


Thanks for being the GIFT that keeps on GIVING fj. You said everything, again. Too bad you are already under the bus...as a huge stain on society.

[fj1200]

... er'm .... YOU JUST DID ... !!

Hey idiot, way to point out the obvious. Besides moron I was asking a question which should have been obvious by my use of a question mark.


What I am, FJ, is disgusted by your dishonesty.

Here's one particularly ludicrous example. Elsewhere, you posted ....

"Elsewhere"? Try staying on topic moron rather than trolling your crap all over the site. You're exhibiting foolish knucklehead behavior your knucklehead pals say that they don't like. If only you weren't so hypocritical. I'll chalk this up as yet another example of dishonest behavior by you.

Besides, I've never been dishonest. :)


... low-grade...

A low grade poster such as yourself gets a low grade response. Remember the response you get from me is entirely up to you. I can't control when your ignorant imagination drives what you post.


:blablah:

... only a Big Government approach could possibly suffice.

:blah:

This is why debating with you is a pointless exercise (your abusiveness notwithstanding). You REFUSE to represent yourself HONESTLY.

Another Thatcherite deflection from you sucking at this? Why am I surprised at yet another defense from you of big government solutions. And yet another example of you whining about debating with me yet you keep doing it. :laugh: You suck at this.

[fj1200]

Well, actually, it's the republic part that is specifically important.

Good answers but I think in the case of the US specifically it's the Constitution that is most important. Even in a pure democracy a Constitutional standard would temper the wild swings of a fickle electorate.

[aboutime]

Hey idiot, way to point out the obvious. Besides moron I was asking a question which should have been obvious by my use of a question mark.



"Elsewhere"? Try staying on topic moron rather than trolling your crap all over the site. You're exhibiting foolish knucklehead behavior your knucklehead pals say that they don't like. If only you weren't so hypocritical. I'll chalk this up as yet another example of dishonest behavior by you.

Besides, I've never been dishonest. :)



A low grade poster such as yourself gets a low grade response. Remember the response you get from me is entirely up to you. I can't control when your ignorant imagination drives what you post.



Another Thatcherite deflection from you sucking at this? Why am I surprised at yet another defense from you of big government solutions. And yet another example of you whining about debating with me yet you keep doing it. :laugh: You suck at this.



fj. Please accept my most sincerest of apologies to you. I wasn't aware of your failed Lobotomy.:poke:

[Gunny]

And I'm thinking why do y'all have an issue with FJ while some commie ass bastard runs rampant?

[Kathianne]

Good answers but I think in the case of the US specifically it's the Constitution that is most important. Even in a pure democracy a Constitutional standard would temper the wild swings of a fickle electorate.

How would that work?

[Drummond]

And I'm thinking why do y'all have an issue with FJ while some commie ass bastard runs rampant?

FJ tries to hide the truth about himself. But as his most recent replies show, not only can he not do so, he'd STILL prefer evasion to truthful representation. Oh, and much diversionary abuse, too ...

They say 'better the devil you know'. If FJ had his way, none of what I've exposed about him would ever see the light of day.

[Drummond]

Hey idiot, way to point out the obvious.

You seemed to need it, FJ ..


"Elsewhere"? Try staying on topic moron rather than trolling your crap all over the site. You're exhibiting foolish knucklehead behavior your knucklehead pals say that they don't like.

Heh heh. :laugh: Didn't like that little reminder, did you ? I'm 'gratified' (to the extent I can even care) that you still find it necessary to respond to my every post, despite your comment elsewhere.


If only you weren't so hypocritical.

But that's MY line ...


I'll chalk this up as yet another example of dishonest behavior by you.

... so's that. Dishonesty, disparity, inconsistency, outright lies .. and that's you on a good day !! Cue yet more diversionary abuse ? H'mm ?

So tell us. Which are you ... a loyal, 'consistent' advocate of Small Government .. OR .. 'The One True Thatcherite' .. h'm ?

Are you having trouble making up your mind, FJ ?

Tell you what. Why not post another of your anti-Conservative attacks while you're pondering that one.


Besides, I've never been dishonest. :)

Indeed ? Then I'll repeat my above question !

Which are you ... a loyal, 'consistent' advocate of Small Government .. OR .. 'The One True Thatcherite' .. h'm ?


A low grade poster such as yourself gets a low grade response.

A flimsy excuse for your own posting 'quality', FJ.

You choose your misrepresentations of yourself. You choose not to own up to them, when found out. You choose abuse where apologies would be far more appropriate. ALL of that, from you, rather than honest and straightforward debate !


Remember the response you get from me is entirely up to you.

Very good !!! IS IT, REALLY ? Shall we test that ?

I shall repeat my question AGAIN, since you say the response I get from you is entirely up to me. I require you to answer this question !!

Which are you ... a loyal, 'consistent' advocate of Small Government .. OR .. 'The One True Thatcherite' .. h'm ?

You can answer my question, if YOUR response is up to ME.

Or, you can prove your statement to be just another of your untruths ....


Why am I surprised at yet another defense from you of big government solutions. And yet another example of you whining about debating with me yet you keep doing it. :laugh: You suck at this.

So, you categorise my responses as 'debate' ? Good. I'm glad you think so. Remember that assertion, FJ.

Or .. NOT, if you choose to backtrack (.. yet again ..) ...

But here's the 'odd' thing. You, as 'The One True Thatcherite', surely CANNOT mind Big Government solutions .. given Mrs Thatcher's record. So, what's your problem with them ?

Isn't your problem that you INSIST on saying you're something that you're NOT ??

Cue an attack on a Conservative (something you claim you don't do) in response .. ?

[Drummond]

Well, actually, it's the republic part that is specifically important. After all, democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

By moving it to a democratic republic (Meaning that the general populace votes for representatives), it changes that equation. There are other forms of Republics, based on who has the right to vote. For instance, Legions in Rome could actually elect the Emperor... which led to a point where there were 4 Caesars at one time.

[COLOR=#800000]

Well, it is relative. Let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment in two States, NY and TX. Texas has open carry, whereas NY barely has concealed carry, and you need a specific licensing for it. That alters the degree of freedom with regards to firearms ownership.

Then we can also use the same two states to determine freedom relative to ability to make a living. Both States have a major city, but TX has a far lower taxation rate, and cost of living than NY, and thus, you can make less in TX, and still be more free than you would be in NY making the same amount.

And actually, over here, the liberals are INSANELY thrilled with straight democracy. No, no, really. Watch every election cycle we ever have where a Dem is involved, and you'll see it: Every time, all they do is promise whatever they figure the most people will vote for, so if they see that minorities have solid enough numbers for getting them in, guess who's getting pitched to?

Over here, liberals and dem are almost to the point of pure mob rule democracy.

Impressive answers, DragonStryk, and thank you for them. I don't think I have any real room for disagreement, or challenge.

Two points come to mind. One ... the authority in receipt of tax revenues would claim that those revenues give them greater freedoms to provide services with the money they've gained, which means that everybody's supposedly 'a winner' out of it. That said, though, all this example proves is the relativity of the freedom involved ! So ... there y'go ..

The other is that Dems will indeed do whatever it takes to get voting numbers to go their way. Ah .. but, that's credit for them that they'd expect to 'cash in' sometime ..

... not that it's quite that simple, because more is involved in that game of balances. What people WOULD choose to care about, and exactly HOW they care about it, can first be predetermined by tinkering with peoples' sensibilities.

Example: a Left winger would always preach deference towards so-called 'religious minorities'. Popularise that deferential attitude by, say, demonising its opposite ... and the Left predetermines what the voter would prefer to see (... on pain of being labelled 'bigoted', or 'racist', otherwise ...). So, the 'popular' thing to see in a political Party 'magically' becomes the very thing that the Left says it SHOULD be, anyway .. ! .. cue some votes for 'popular' candidates, [B]made so through manipulation of attitudinal goalposts !!

So, ahem, freedom is INDEED relative .....

[Drummond]

NOW I understand why he infuriates you so much. I just now figured that out.

If you mean what I think you do, you're right .. to a small extent.

The fact of the matter is, though, that FJ cannot possibly be what he says he is. The sheer inconsistencies involved prove that all by themselves.

If he's a Libertarian (which in the UK is far more identifiable as Left wing than in the US, apparently), and totally committed to 'small Government', then he'd be forced to disapprove of some of the positions Mrs Thatcher took. But, he says he's The One True Thatcherite', which - insulting as it is, in its own right (and the insult is undoubtedly both intended and enjoyed !) .. so his adherence to Libertarianism wouldn't make sense. Mrs Thatcher approved of a 'small Government' approach, EXCEPT WHEN SITUATIONS WERE BETTER MET WITH ITS OPPOSITE.

More serious even than all this, is why FJ is so determined to misrepresent himself, and to insist that people buy into it.

[fj1200]

How would that work?

Temper the wild swings? Just like now by having a rule of law benchmark that guides decisions. Of course I could be assuming way too much of our current structure carrying over.

[fj1200]

... I've exposed about him...

:laugh: I've already shown you to be a hypocritical fool.


The sheer inconsistencies involved prove that all by themselves.

You mean when I say I'm for small government and then back big government decision making? Oh wait, that's you idiot.

I feel though that I must point out that if being a Thatcherite means you mindlessly parrot what occurred whether it was the right or best solution then yes, you are the true Thatcherite. You apparently feel that you get to be the ultimate definer of Thatcherism.


An exponent or supporter of Thatcherism is regarded as a Thatcherite.
Both the exact terms of what makes up Thatcherism as well as its specific legacy in terms of British history over the past decades are controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism

Besides, I've already detailed all my points of agreements with Mags in one of the other countless threads that you've brought up to deflect away from losing scores of your other arguments so I feel no need to do it again. Do I mindlessly parrot all that Mags did? Nope, never claimed to. Do you mindlessly parrot? You sure do except when you feel Mags would bend her core beliefs.

[fj1200]

:blah:

I forget is this thread about your imagination or you whining about Mags again? Either way, you suck at this. How's your defense of your hypocrisy coming?

[Kathianne]

Temper the wild swings? Just like now by having a rule of law benchmark that guides decisions. Of course I could be assuming way too much of our current structure carrying over.

I would agree with the 'assuming too much.' I strongly believe in the structure and reasoning behind the Constitution. Indeed over time I think that one may strongly argue that each 'reform' the original system to a more 'democratic' model has resulted in less than favorable results. Whether it be direct election of Senators, motor/voter laws, etc.

[fj1200]

I would agree with the 'assuming too much.' I strongly believe in the structure and reasoning behind the Constitution. Indeed over time I think that one may strongly argue that each 'reform' the original system to a more 'democratic' model has resulted in less than favorable results. Whether it be direct election of Senators, motor/voter laws, etc.

Amen, repeal the 18th.

[Kathianne]

Amen, repeal the 18th.

There's a huge difference between expanding the franchise to those without and making a system more open to fraud such as motor/voter or the new idea of 'automatic registration' at 18.

What prohibition has to do with my point? Got me.

[fj1200]

There's a huge difference between expanding the franchise to those without and making a system more open to fraud such as motor/voter or the new idea of 'automatic registration' at 18.

What prohibition has to do with my point? Got me.

Dang-it, sorry. Repeal the 17th.

[Drummond]

Despite all of your usual bluster, FJ .. even YOU have had to finally move from your obviously impossible situation. Dragged, kicking and screaming, certainly ... but movement is there !


You mean when I say I'm for small government and then back big government decision making? Oh wait, that's you idiot.

You've claimed extreme loyalty to Margaret Thatcher's 'Thatcherism', by billing yourself as 'The One True Thatcherite', and 'Ultimate Thatcherite'. Not just some loyalty. Extreme loyalty. Loyalty over and above other Thatcherites out there.

If true ... it would be impossibly odd for you to then depart from any of what Mrs Thatcher stood for.

However, finally, after much contention, we get this ....


I feel though that I must point out that if being a Thatcherite means you mindlessly parrot what occurred whether it was the right or best solution then yes, you are the true Thatcherite. You apparently feel that you get to be the ultimate definer of Thatcherism.

Not the 'ultimate' definer, no. I leave such grandiose, unbelievable self-praise to you. No ... just a CONSISTENT one. One loyal to all she stood for, not just 'bits' of it.

What you insisted was true of you, that you somehow stood head and shoulders above other Thatcherites, COULD NOT be squared against your blanket disapproval of any Big Government decision-making. I knew it. You didn't want to admit to it, but you did, too. You could NOT be genuine.

Now, though, there's movement of yours, and that in defiance of all your ridiculous self-praise rot. Now, you're no longer an automatic advocate of her beliefs. Meaning, you've finally had to admit the fraudulent nature of your 'bona fides'. Of course you did. Before, you weren't making any sense.

CONGRATULATIONS ON SOME HONESTY, NO MATTER HOW BEGRUDGINGLY OFFERED.


Do I mindlessly parrot all that Mags did? Nope, never claimed to.

Exactly the problem ! You've claimed to be the 'ultimate' Thatcherite. How could any 'ultimate' supporter of hers possibly fail to be THE most unwaveringly loyal follower around ????

This is what helps expose your position as FRAUDULENT.


Do you mindlessly parrot? You sure do except when you feel Mags would bend her core beliefs.

More evidence of your fraudulent nature ! I've never suggested that she'd 'bend her core beliefs'. She was always true to her pragmatic approach to Government. So, this is YOUR INVENTION. And one which suggests an insult against her.

You just can't stop insulting Conservatives, can you, FJ ? Now ... WHY IS THAT ?

[fj1200]

Despite all of your usual bluster, FJ .. even YOU have had to finally move from your obviously impossible situation. Dragged, kicking and screaming, certainly ... but movement is there !

:dunno:


You've claimed extreme loyalty to Margaret Thatcher's 'Thatcherism', by billing yourself as 'The One True Thatcherite', and 'Ultimate Thatcherite'. Not just some loyalty. Extreme loyalty. Loyalty over and above other Thatcherites out there.

If true ... it would be impossibly odd for you to then depart from any of what Mrs Thatcher stood for.

However, finally, after much contention, we get this ....

WTF are you even talking about? Are you trying to save face by claiming some victory that isn't there?


Not the 'ultimate' definer, no. I leave such grandiose, unbelievable self-praise to you. No ... just a CONSISTENT one. One loyal to all she stood for, not just 'bits' of it.

What you insisted was true of you, that you somehow stood head and shoulders above other Thatcherites, COULD NOT be squared against your blanket disapproval of any Big Government decision-making. I knew it. You didn't want to admit to it, but you did, too. You could NOT be genuine.

Now, though, there's movement of yours, and that in defiance of all your ridiculous self-praise rot. Now, you're no longer an automatic advocate of her beliefs. Meaning, you've finally had to admit the fraudulent nature of your 'bona fides'. Of course you did. Before, you weren't making any sense.

CONGRATULATIONS ON SOME HONESTY, NO MATTER HOW BEGRUDGINGLY OFFERED.

I am incredibly loyal to what she stood for. You are not. hint: read my signature. I'm just not loyal to what she did if it wasn't a conservative solution. You repeat over and over you're loyal to her big government solutions which proves YET AGAIN THAT YOU'RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE!

Wow, I said that in bold and all caps so it's obviously true by drummond/Knucklehead standards and cannot be denied. :laugh:


Exactly the problem ! You've claimed to be the 'ultimate' Thatcherite. How could any 'ultimate' supporter of hers possibly fail to be THE most unwaveringly loyal follower around ????

This is what helps expose your position as FRAUDULENT.

So by your own evidence you're not much of a Thatcherite either. :dunno:


More evidence of your fraudulent nature ! I've never suggested that she'd 'bend her core beliefs'. She was always true to her pragmatic approach to Government. So, this is YOUR INVENTION. And one which suggests an insult against her.

You just can't stop insulting Conservatives, can you, FJ ? Now ... WHY IS THAT ?

I've never insulted a conservative you mindless fool. You're just still smarting since I pointed out your hypocrisy. :)