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.
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.