Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

marriage ban in north carolina passes


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:49:03 AM PDT
Nat says:
Did you even attempt to read the facts? Me thinks yes. It is not a complete democracy not a complete republic. Take this as an example. China is a pure republic. Are you going to argue that our government is identical to ours? That'd be a mistake. LMAO

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:50:00 AM PDT
G. J. Stein says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:50:15 AM PDT
Nat says:
Which is exactly what I I said. We are in agreement. READ IT FOR KRIKES SAKES!

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:51:23 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:51:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 9:52:40 AM PDT
Unclench... If you'll look, you'll see that I *didn't* direct my post at you... I was making a general statement to the thread as a whole. If you see our posts as being in agreement, then why comment?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:52:49 AM PDT
Nat says:
wow YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT PUT MUCH THOUGHT INTO THAT. Because quite simply there are dozens of biblical laws that are illegal. Wonder why that is?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:53:38 AM PDT
Nat says:
Because you seemed to be implying that I was not right and K was

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:58:11 AM PDT
Nat says:
Which is apparently a bad source for information because it's the complete opposite. England too. All the countries that allows same sex marriage has changed or effected them in anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:58:52 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:00:03 AM PDT
dischism says:
G.J.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making in this post.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:01:56 AM PDT
Nat says:
Right, and I kinda remember my grandpa forced to stay in the closet until the mid sixties had 7 children! It is not like they cannot perform sexually. Sex really secondary. It's because homosexuals can fall in love like heteros but it's just the same gender.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:04:02 AM PDT
dischism says:
Fingers

< Well, it's like your mother told you, if the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?>

Now *that* was a lucid, rational reply to a post that addressed an apparent gap in your knowledge. /sarcasm

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:06:42 AM PDT
Nat says:
Are you actually agreeing with moronic fingers? That's a miracle. Fingers rarely has ever said a single thing coherently

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:11:26 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Nope what? Nope the founders did not reject democracy in favor of the representative constitutional republic they created? Nope we are not a representative constitutional republic governed by a representative democracy? Nope what exactly?

If you wish me to wade through this wall of text copy and paste job to find the parts that are relevant and which address and refute my post, you will be waiting for awhile.

If you want to explain in your own words, or with concise and well chosen parts of another text or the opinions of others to address my post, I will be happy to read and consider it.

------------------------------

On second thought, let's look at what the bottom portion of your post has to say:

"John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify."

K: Yes, that is what I said.

"According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the United States Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices. Such justices are appointed by the popularly elected president, and approved by the popularly-elected Senate. Woodburn says that in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.[5]"

K: And again, that is perfectly consistent with my post, though I did not address this in such detail. I said nothing that goes counter to it, and everything I said was consistent with it.

"However, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others, held that the federal government was not the sole or final judge of its own authority, holding that this would "make it, and not the Constitution, the judge of its powers."[citation needed] Rather, in the Virginia Resolutions, the Kentucky Resolutions and elsewhere, various individuals stipulated that the people of the individual states were the final check on federal power to ensure compliance with the Constitution, holding that the people of any given state had the final power to "interpose" for the purpose of maintaining the Constitution against federal abuses thereof."

K: Yes, citation needed indeed, and how did Jefferson and Madison provide means for the people to do this beyond voting for Congress?

"Though a constitutional republic is not a pure democracy it necessarily has some democratic elements,"

K: Yes, I said this in my post.

"Both are considered liberal democracies because they protect individual liberty from majority and minority forces, while retaining some democratic elements."

K: Yes again, which is why I said you and others are free to call our government a "democracy", but again, it is not a true democracy, it does not fall under the strict definition of democracy, and the point of Irish's post, and mine, was to point this out to those who label it as a "democracy" in their defense of their belief in majority rule over minority rights.

"Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

K: OK. I get it now. You did not read my post at all. If you did, you would not post this as a refutation to what I posted.

Let's copy and paste what I actually wrote:

I said: "We have a republic that is governed by a representative democracy and wherein certain rights are established Constitutionally, safely kept out of reach of majority opinion."

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:14:42 AM PDT
dischism says:
Nat

Did you notice that I ended the post "/sarcasm"?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:19:21 AM PDT
It seems to me that the rational response to that question is "Well, that depends... *why* are the other kids jumping off a bridge?"

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:24:58 AM PDT
dischism says:
Michael

Indeed.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:33:44 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Michael was right, and so was I, though our wordings were a bit different.

We are a constitutional republic governed by a representative democracy, which is quite a bit different than a pure, or direct democracy, which is what I said in my original post to you, which you said was wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:34:17 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
And I will get back to you on this. Enjoy your day too.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:57:38 AM PDT
Nat says:
I apologize. It seemed it was sarcasm for fingers on me. My bad. I don't have a good sarcasm detector in typed sentences

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:04:09 AM PDT
Nat says:
The reason I choose to copy/paste stuff is because it gets on my nerve4s when I do say it in my own words and then have to copy/paste proof and sources anyway. Basically I am just avoiding the middle man. I used to do it that way, but life is too short

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:08:55 AM PDT
Nat says:
Which is just a longer version of my refutation. So you actually just admitted you were wrong. I said "we just say democracy for short" which we do. We do that in countless words. Like for instance, my printer is an artisan 835 wifi enables, cd printing, tray insert of paper and a scanner. Or I could just say "my printer"

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:10:21 AM PDT
Nat says:
This means that both myself and Micheal were right. He just went the short way and he just took the long way.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:16:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 11:18:42 AM PDT
dischism says:
No problem. :)

I'm finding my posts are getting a little terse due to the repetition of the same points over and over again and then yet again.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:19:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 11:23:46 AM PDT
Nat says:
This is what I have said from the very beginning. Then you still tell me I am wrong and I don't even know why because we were basically saying the same thing. I was reiterating when I said "Did you even attempt to read the facts? Me thinks yes. It is not a complete democracy not a complete republic. Take this as an example. China is a pure republic. Are you going to argue that our government is identical to ours? That'd be a mistake.

what he said was this is a republic and not a democracy as if he didnt know the US is actually both.

My point was that the reason it is not coined just republic is because it isn't. I did not say in any way that it was a republic or a democracy. We are a hybrid of both. That is why most US citizens just say "democracy" because it's shorter. We all should know this. I know what our government is, it's common sense so using democracy should be known already and realize what they mean when we say Democracy. We say it for short
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  59
Total posts:  1581
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions