Right Divider
Body part
It seems that you are very confused about how that system works and why it's vitally important.
This one explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
Mueller turns up the heat on impeachment
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
This one explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
The thing about a quote like that is that the parameters make it impossible to reject, even though it has no inherently demonstrable truth to it.
Beyond that, my country is a republic. That is, we were founded on democratic principles with restraints to make the worst impulse of a swayable mob less likely to pull us into ruin.
Of course. Look at the genocides in history. Nazi Germany. Soviet Union. Cambodia. Rwanda. Armenia. Dafur. Bosnia.
All of them perpetrated by governments that were democracies.
Er, wait...
Well, think of all the democracies that committed genocide. Ahhh..there's... (never mind)
WFTH-I
:first:
:AMR: You can't reject it, but it's not true. Talk about 1984.
Name a democracy that is not either practicing mass murder or headed that way.
So maybe you're headed down the toilet a little more slowly than anyone else. :idunno:
Typical evolutionist. Has no concept of simple logic. :chuckle:
Rather, the proposition you proffered was open ended, as I noted. Given it has no definable end point it can never be proven to be wrong or true, even if there is no evidence of it in the present and regardless of how much time has passed.
"Headed that way," has the same problem, but the word you used was genocide. Now it's a less particular phrase, "mass murder." If you're Amish that would be war. If you're against abortion, it's abortion. If you're radical enough as environmentalists go it's larger still. If you're a Buddhist...just about any civilization in just about every age.
In any event, none of it is genocide and any of the other points relies on a subjective valuation that runs into problems. No democracy is practicing mass murder. No state is taking anyone out and murdering them, or even taking their lives without due process, if then.
And we're back to the first problem, supra.
Yours is. :idunno:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Mueller live and public July 17.
If our system is still intact, when the hearing is over impeachment proceedings will begin.
If our system is still intact, when the hearing is over impeachment proceedings will begin.
Foxfire
Well-known member
I quite agree, but the thrust of my point was that a representative democratic republic government is in itself sufficient to override the pitfalls of pure democracy. IMHO
Why?
It's just pure democracy removed by one step.
It's like four wolves electing two wolves to be their representatives, and two sheep electing one of them to be their representative, and then those two wolves and the sheep voting on lunch.
It's your proffer. Set out how.
Not if you understand the term. It's also not the state mandating the death of anyone.A million a year, or thereabouts. :idunno:
But don't worry, it's not a genocide.
Because it provides fundamental protections against a sentiment of the moment by making its implementation into the rule of law an arduous process that tends to encourage cooler heads and a powerful consensus.
In the sense that drinking is just alcoholism removed by a step.
It's a pretty important step.
Well, it directly addressed your contention, so I guess that does bring it into question.
You said our democracy was practicing mass murder. I noted that the state, our Republic, isn't mandating the death of anyone absent due process. So no genocide and no mass murder.
My contention is that democracy leads to mass killing.
You've invented something to disagree with.
And yet a million babies a year are executed.
Does democracy mean that much to you? :AMR:
Which also slows down justice, by the way...
Consensus got Christ crucified and Barabbas, a criminal, released.
As opposed to one ruler who rightly declared Jesus innocent.
You're equivocating two different kinds of steps.
One is a step away from a similar type of government, the other is a step away from a crime.
This is why equivocation is a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument.
drbrumley
Well-known member
:rotfl:
