Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
I stopped reading when the author wrote “prescribed” instead of “proscribed”...
I've read the Republic. Excuse me, please point out where I lobbied for pure democracy?
Your post is the biggest non-sequitur that I've ever read.
As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations.
That's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic. I will not live under a Catholic monarchy, no matter how much you try to lobby for it.
If they can and did legalize killing unborn children in the womb they are and will continue through the courts to legalize the killing off of the expensive unproductive aged generation under the guise of “assisted suicide.”
That’s going to be the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid et al will continue to fund their socialist agenda while “selectly reducing” the those with memories of freedom needing Social Security, medicare and medicaid benefits.
What goes around, comes around. One day Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Felos and Judge Greer will become old or disabled.
I never claimed that you lobbied for a pure democracy (nice try at sneaking in a fallacious straw-man argument, though). While not contesting the truth of your dubious claim of having read Plato despite all of the ill-informed comments you have made here on this thread, you did claim in post #12 that anyone who advocated for a monarchical form of government was "extremely idiotic and stupid" in obvious comparison to our democratic form of government.
Your post is the biggest non-sequitur that I've ever read.
If that is true then you clearly have no understanding of Plato or even basic logic. On which comparative form of government were you boldly basing your low assessment of the intelligence of those who advocated monarchical governance?
That's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic.
Which, of course, they themselves wrote of as a type of democracy.
I will not live under a Catholic monarchy, no matter how much you try to lobby for it.
That's the second fallacious straw-man argument you have attempted in your short and poorly formed post. I've lobbied for no such thing. I have merely pointed out how utterly foolish you were to have attempted to make a blind assessment of the intelligence of those who do. Unfortunately, your rebuttal post has done nothing other than to further demonstrate that your insults of "extremely idiotic and stupid" apply to no one better than to yourself.
Perhaps, but, based on the context, it seems like proscribed (forbidden) was intended...
"Extremely idiotic and stupid" describes people who reject the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed as "anti-Christian", and lobby for a return to a religious monarchy. If you want to defend an idea, then go ahead and do so. I'm not interested in getting involved in another one of your insult sessions.
So publicly questioning and lobbying for religious freedom would get me a trip to the Inquisition?
What if I were to publicly question Catholicism? Would that also lead to persecution by this Catholic monarch?
What if a non-Christian wished to seek the monarchy? Would he be automatically disqualified?
If he was a good Monarch, he’d call out the armed forces and disband “Parliment,” by force if necessary.
Oh, well.
Now THAT'S funny coming from the same poster who did nothing but that same thing in post #12! I, of course, have done nothing of the sort and since then I've made a solid case pointing out the utter foolishness of your assertions there.
"Extremely idiotic and stupid" describes people who reject the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed as "anti-Christian", and lobby for a return to a religious monarchy.
This statement of yours is nothing other than "throwing ad hominems without staking out a position"! You just attempted to falsely accuse me of this same thing, immediately above, in this same post!!! Come on, this must be some kind of joke, nobody could be this dense!
If you want to defend an idea, then go ahead and do so.
That is EXACTLY what I did in my post #97 to you. By the way, you never responded directly to ANY of my points in that post and instead attempted to stick me with two fallacious straw-man arguments. There can be no better proof of the weakness of your argument and the feablemindedness of your reasoning than to fail to even attempt a rebuttal.
I'm not interested in getting involved in another one of your insult sessions.
All you have done on this thread is sling insults and make fallacious attacks! Hypocrisy, thy name is GunRunner!!!
Your post about the Founders distrusting pure democracy is defense of an idea?
Wow, that's rich. I made a statement about people who reject the entire Enlightenment, which helped form the representative and limited government that we have in the Western world today, and you respond with "As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations."
Color me impressed. Yes, I think everybody knows that the Founders did not want the US to be a direct democracy, and didn't want it to succumb to mob rule. It was totally irrelevant to what I said. Thanks for showing us the depths of your intellectual capacity. Maybe you should have added "Puppies are cute" to show us more deep thinking.
My comments were directed at those who would abandon a representative republic for an unelected religious monarchy. You attacked me for calling that position "idiotic". Yet you haven't made any arguments as to where why rejecting our republic for an unelected monarchy is superior. Is it not idiotic? Tell us why.
Come on hot shot. Tell all of the Freepers here why they should abandon the United States Constitution for an unelected monarchy. Show us that you're capable of a single original thought.
I'm not holding my breath.
Hypocrisy, thy name is GunRunner!!!
I love it when my enemies say my name. Say it again shlemiel!
Good article, but ditto on your post. The Remnant is an, IMO, over-the-top Catholic rag w/ way too much holier-than thou attitude.
I think that this is pretty obvious that monarch have God given legitimacy to rule. So he wont allow anybody to publicly claim that this God doesn’t exist. You would indirectly question his position.
What if a non-Christian wished to seek the monarchy? Would he be automatically disqualified?
There are plenty of monarchies around the word, most of them non-Christian.
It's a thorough defense of the idea that you were utterly foolish in casting your baseless insults in post #12.
Wow, that's rich. I made a statement about people who reject the entire Enlightenment, which helped form the representative and limited government that we have in the Western world today, and you respond with "As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations."
You merely made a statement about the intelligence of those people. My statement completely refuted your far more simplistic point.
Color me impressed.
I would normally take that as a complement, but based on what you have written on this thread, it's likely that impressing you isn't very hard to do.
Yes, I think everybody knows that the Founders did not want the US to be a direct democracy, and didn't want it to succumb to mob rule.
They also stated that even an indirect democracy would be doomed to failure if voters put their own limited self-interests ahead of those of future generations, as I already wrote to you in post #97.
It was totally irrelevant to what I said.
Well since you merely made a false and baseless claim against the intelligence of those who disagreed with you, you left no relevant basis for a meaningful discussion. I took it upon myself to try to make your post intellectually coherent enough to refute.
Thanks for showing us the depths of your intellectual capacity.
You're welcome, but I'll be modest enough to admit that anyone would probably look good with you as their opponent.
Maybe you should have added "Puppies are cute" to show us more deep thinking.
Although that would certainly be something you would find more interesting based on the depth of intellect you have shown on this thread, I doubt anyone else would find that very interesting.
My comments were directed at those who would abandon a representative republic for an unelected religious monarchy.
No, your post #12 was merely a false and baseless assessment of their intelligence with no specified audience.
You attacked me for calling that position "idiotic".
Actually your precise phrase from post #12 was "extremely idiotic and stupid."
Yet you haven't made any arguments as to where why rejecting our republic for an unelected monarchy is superior.
Actually I made several points and a reference in my post #97 as to why you were wrong. By the way, you still haven't even made an attempt to refute any of them.
Is it not idiotic? Tell us why.
Again, see post #97 and respond to it.
Come on hot shot.
I hope that you realize that your writings here are only furthering the negative opinion any objective reader of this thread has already developed of you.
Tell all of the Freepers here why they should abandon the United States Constitution for an unelected monarchy.
I am content merely to tell them, as I already have on this thread, why you are such an utter fool for what your have written here.
Show us that you're capable of a single original thought.
Any of my posts on this thread should be quite sufficient for that.
I'm not holding my breath.
I would never encourage anyone of your obvious deficits to hold their breath. It would simply be too dangerous.
I love it when my enemies say my name. Say it again shlemiel!
Is that Yiddish? If that is indeed the language of your ethnicity than you are an even more extreme example of the low end of an otherwise higher intellectual bell curve. Your very existence must be like being an intellectual midget amongst giants. You have my condolences.
The Pope certainly would not - he is catholic, a manarch of an European state, strongly anti-abortion...
And the Pope is the Absolute Manarch of the Vatican. If he had ordered the guard to put Pelosi’s head on a pike, it we be decorating Ste. Peter’s Square right now.
So post #97 was your defense of a monarchy? I'll let other Freepers scroll back to it to see your impassioned response. It was quite impressive if you're an 8th grader.
You have admitted that there is good reason a good reason to ditch the Constitution and return to a religious monarchy. Thankfully, more intelligent Freepers on this thread have actually mapped out their reasoning for this, and have have said that it would include religious repression of those who don't support the church. Everyone now knows where you stand on religious freedom. Congratulations.
Oh, and if your little fantasy comes true, and the clerical authorities come to my home to arrest me for speaking out against the church and the monarchy, I hope they send you. Although I doubt you’d have the stones.
Have you read any of my posts? Here you go again, trying to fallaciously pin a straw-man position on me which I never took. My only purpose on this thread was to show what a fool you were for what you wrote in your post #12. Everything you have posted since then has only furthered that observation!
I'll let other Freepers scroll back to it to see your impassioned response.
My reply to your utterly foolish and completely baseless assertions in post #12 can be found in my post #97.
It was quite impressive if you're an 8th grader.
You having a lesser grade schooler's perspective would do much to explain this comment and the rest of your juvenile posts on this thread.
You have admitted that there is good reason a good reason to ditch the Constitution and return to a religious monarchy.
There you go again, trying to fallaciously pin yet another false straw-man position on me which I never took. These desperate attempts to fraudulently cheat in this debate only add to the conclusion that you have already conceded all of my actual points (to which you still have yet to respond).
Thankfully, more intelligent Freepers on this thread have actually mapped out their reasoning for this,
Are you still making baseless assessments of people's intelligence on this thread? Your simplistic and unsubstantiated insults are so juvenile that I am starting to believe that you really just might be a grade school student!
and have have said that it would include religious repression of those who don't support the church.
Although this is clearly outside my point, I will add that almost all of the religious repression of the last century occurred in countries with democratic constitutions.
Everyone now knows where you stand on religious freedom. Congratulations.
That would truly be amazing since I haven't yet commented on the subject. You appear to be deluded on a number of different levels.
Oh, and if your little fantasy comes true,
So in addition to remotely assessing other people's intelligence you are now also divining their innermost desires? Your psychic powers must be incredible!!!
and the clerical authorities come to my home to arrest me for speaking out against the church and the monarchy,
You certainly have a grade schooler's imagination...
I hope they send you.
Awe, that's sweet of you!
Although I doubt you’d have the stones.
Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with. I find it much more enjoyable to publicly expose them as the fools they are, just like what I am doing with the opportunity you are providing me here!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.