- Aristotle"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
Moderator: Community Team
- Aristotle"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
This is the gayest message board on the internet - you should take it as a compliment, it was probably a fantasy vote.xeno wrote:Maybe offtopic but who the f*ck voted for me in the "Which off-topic regular do you think is a closet gay? " thread?? I WANNA FUCKING KNOW RIGHt tHE f*ck NOW!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
Is the tyranny of the majority "a fair deal", Phatscotty?Phatscotty wrote: I'm not sure exactly where you guys stand on the states rights aspect on this issue? Everyone has an equal say on the matter. If it passes, it passes. More power to ya.
How in the world is this not a fair deal?
Try reviewing 1963, MIssissippi , for just a few clues.Phatscotty wrote: I'm not sure exactly where you guys stand on the states rights aspect on this issue? Everyone has an equal say on the matter. If it passes, it passes. More power to ya.
How in the world is this not a fair deal?
No Player, just because you have one example that doesn't seem right by 2012 standards (not 1963 standards) does not mean the entire institution of states rights doesn't work.PLAYER57832 wrote:Try reviewing 1963, MIssissippi , for just a few clues.Phatscotty wrote: I'm not sure exactly where you guys stand on the states rights aspect on this issue? Everyone has an equal say on the matter. If it passes, it passes. More power to ya.
How in the world is this not a fair deal?
Just because a lot of people agree does not make it correct. That is why we have a government based on laws, not just majority votes.
.Phatscotty wrote:No Player, just because you have one example that doesn't seem right by 2012 standards (not 1963 standards) does not mean the entire institution of states rights doesn't workPLAYER57832 wrote:Try reviewing 1963, MIssissippi , for just a few clues.Phatscotty wrote: I'm not sure exactly where you guys stand on the states rights aspect on this issue? Everyone has an equal say on the matter. If it passes, it passes. More power to ya.
How in the world is this not a fair deal?
Just because a lot of people agree does not make it correct. That is why we have a government based on laws, not just majority votes.
Specific examples, please. And ones that meat reality.Phatscotty wrote:Power to the people. The people get it right most of the time, and there is no comparison when it comes to the reality of how often the government gets it wrong.
Phatscotty finds it icky. That's serious!PLAYER57832 wrote:Specific examples, please. And ones that meat reality.Phatscotty wrote:Power to the people. The people get it right most of the time, and there is no comparison when it comes to the reality of how often the government gets it wrong.
And while you are at it, what serious damage is going to occur from recognizing same sex unions?
I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their opinion.
I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
Phatscotty believes that The Tyranny of the Majority is a fair deal!Phatscotty wrote:I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their opinion.
Power divided is power checkedLootifer wrote:I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
You realize Phatscotty does that on purpose, right?Lootifer wrote:Not really what I meant, but whatever...
Yeh but I do try to be honest...Woodruff wrote:You realize Phatscotty does that on purpose, right?Lootifer wrote:Not really what I meant, but whatever...
As they should, but over the decades, the constitution has failed to be effective in curbing the power of the executive and less so with the legislative.Lootifer wrote:I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
You failed to mention the branch that has essentially allowed that to happen. Well, them and the lapdog media.BigBallinStalin wrote:As they should, but over the decades, the constitution has failed to be effective in curbing the power of the executive and less so with the legislative.Lootifer wrote:I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
That's what I'm seeing, as well.BigBallinStalin wrote:Their main qualities seem to be party loyalty and impeccably clean records (mainly because it makes good marketing).
It's difficult indeed for the justices to be bulldozed (not that it can't happen). The primary problem seems to be, in my personal view, their devotion to their individual ideologies (which fall strikingly close to party loyalty, with some rare exceptions) rather than the Constitution.BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, maybe their bulldozed by the legislative and executive... again, I'm not sure how that process works. It's not like the government is known to be very transparent, and people don't like talking about secrets which will ruin their reputations.
Maybe the people have failed to elect real leaders? Maybe the people have become lazy and immoral and dependent?BigBallinStalin wrote:As they should, but over the decades, the constitution has failed to be effective in curbing the power of the executive and less so with the legislative.Lootifer wrote:I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
Maybe you're trolling or maybe being stupid? I don't really care at this point. You've bankrupted all the fucks I give about you!Phatscotty wrote:Maybe...BigBallinStalin wrote:As they should, but over the decades, the constitution has failed to be effective in curbing the power of the executive and less so with the legislative.Lootifer wrote:I do wonder why you guys have such a strong constitution as well as a democratic government. To me it seems only natural that these two entities are going to fight at every turn... /shrugPhatscotty wrote: I should not have to explain this... Letting the people of each state decide is a fair deal.
Saul Alinsky...is that you?BigBallinStalin wrote:It's page 24, phatsco! Time to post another propaganda video! Maybe add a sentence or two of phatsco-quality?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.