Democracy and Freedom

[Contumacious]

Are you joking?

Wall Street destroyed the world economy with a derivatives Ponzi scheme, and now they have record profits.

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:


And who the fuck encouraged the investors to engage in that risky behavior?

Was it by any chance your boys at the Federal Reserve Board and their illustrious leader Allan Greenspan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

Actually it was Phil Gramm.

He snuck a financial deregulation amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that created the unregulated derivatives market that destroyed the world economy.

You are missing the point Vernon.

I do not give a shit if individuals want to play the derivatives game.

My point is that if you play, you pay the consequences.

I do not want the US Government to bail the motherfuckers out.

can you fucking understand that?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[Chris]

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:


And who the fuck encouraged the investors to engage in that risky behavior?

Was it by any chance your boys at the Federal Reserve Board and their illustrious leader Allan Greenspan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

Actually it was Phil Gramm.

He snuck a financial deregulation amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that created the unregulated derivatives market that destroyed the world economy.

You are missing the point Vernon.

I do not give a shit if individuals want to play the derivatives game.

My point is that if you play, you pay the consequences.

I do not want the US Government to bail the motherfuckers out.

can you fucking understand that?!?!?!?!?!

.

Yes, I do.

But wouldn't it be better to regulate the market, so this kind of crash never happens again?

Glass-Steagall worked well for 70 years. We need to bring it back.

 

[Chris]

Sure I do. Congress is replete with them, as is the Whitehouse... Statist Democrats.

And clue for ya bud? WE aren't the Countries in your list, NOR do they have a Constitution as we do that folks as you ignore.

So what?

In the 1970's only 30% of the world's countries were democracies. Now that number is 65%. The democratization of the planet continues.

Your whinning about "tyranny" is ridiculous. Tyranny is going to be eradicated from the planet.

So what indeed. WE aren't what you intend on seeing us be...as you continue to support those that try to bring us down. Lots of Statist ass to kick...so little time.

You really are living in a fantasy world.

Do you drive on the interstate?

 

[Contumacious]

This is a faith-based statement, not a fact-based one. The proof is that you cannot point to a real-world "capitalist" economy according to your definition of that word.

The US had a substantially free economy from the 1800's until the 1890's. Hong Kong also had a substantially free economy and were doing great.

But we know that the countries where fascism/socialism is being practice are total failures.

.

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

Both countries have corrupt anti-free market governments .

.

 

[Contumacious]

Actually it was Phil Gramm.

He snuck a financial deregulation amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that created the unregulated derivatives market that destroyed the world economy.

You are missing the point Vernon.

I do not give a shit if individuals want to play the derivatives game.

My point is that if you play, you pay the consequences.

I do not want the US Government to bail the motherfuckers out.

can you fucking understand that?!?!?!?!?!

.

Yes, I do.

But wouldn't it be better to regulate the market, so this kind of crash never happens again?

Glass-Steagall worked well for 70 years. We need to bring it back.

Listen closely.

At the time there were a gazillion federal agencies in place "regulating" the market, among them, the FRB, SEC, etc

Congress created those agencies so that ninnies like you believe that they are doing something. When in fact nothing can be done.

Typically, the fact that you need a gazillion dollars to play would tend to regulate the practice because most folks do not have a gazillion dollars. But the Federal Reserve Board continues to provide easy funding by allowing the bastards to get easy credit and then bailing their ass out when their ventures fail.

.

 

[georgephillip]

The US had a substantially free economy from the 1800's until the 1890's. Hong Kong also had a substantially free economy and were doing great.

But we know that the countries where fascism/socialism is being practice are total failures.

.

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

Both countries have corrupt anti-free market governments .

.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Both countries are afflicted with elites who abuse their authority.
Which one do capitalists choose?

 

[Dragon]

It's interesting that this discussion, originally about political systems (democracy versus aristocracy), has now swung over to discussing economics (socialism versus capitalism).

Perhaps the connection is that, in a genuinely democratic context where the people determine government policy, some degree of socialism inevitably follows. Perhaps that's the real reason why democracy meets with so much opposition on the right.

 

[georgephillip]

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

This is a good point. Comparing poor countries to one another, the socialist poor countries like Cuba provide a better standard of living than the capitalist poor countries like Haiti. One can do the same with rich countries. In many ways, living standards and quality of life in Europe, which is more socialistic, are better than in the U.S., which is less so. Of course, life in the U.S. is better than life in Cuba by many measures, but that's comparing apples to oranges.

Iceland also offers some useful alternatives:

"Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return...

2008 changed everything and each of Iceland's citizens was notified the bankers private debts were going to be put on the public tab:

"This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back...

What happened next in Iceland could easily happen here.

Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not | Truthout

 

[paulitician]

We are a Republic. I don't think most Americans understand that. It's not a perfect form of Government but it's as good as we're gonna get on this Earth. It has been an incredibly successful form of Government.

 

[Dragon]

We are a Republic. I don't think most Americans understand that.

Of course they do, but once again -- for the zillionth time -- republic and democracy are NOT mutually exclusive.

There is no contrast or opposition between "republic" and "democracy."

The real contrast is between a democratic republic and an aristocratic republic.

Those who say "we're a republic not a democracy" are really saying they don't think we should be a democratic republic, and that means they are in favor of aristocracy.

Are YOU in favor of aristocracy?

 

[Katzndogz]

What people do not understand is that democracy is not a government, it is just a process to get to the desired government.

 

[paulitician]

Here's an interesting article on what Benjamin Franklin said regarding us being a Republic as opposed to a Democracy...

Benjamin Franklin Had It Right

 

[Dragon]

Here's an interesting article on what Benjamin Franklin said regarding us being a Republic as opposed to a Democracy...

Benjamin Franklin Had It Right

Never, ever, not once, not on one single occasion, did Benjamin Franklin imply that there is ANY contrast or conflict between the concepts of "republic" and "democracy."

The article you linked begins with a straw man and continues with completely bullshit.

THERE IS NO OPPOSITION BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND DEMOCRACY. A REPUBLIC CAN BE DEMOCRATIC OR NOT. IF IT'S NOT, IT'S ARISTOCRATIC. THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, THEREFORE, WANT AN ARISTOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

 

[The T]

Here's an interesting article on what Benjamin Franklin said regarding us being a Republic as opposed to a Democracy...

Benjamin Franklin Had It Right

A Republic...and note this in the Constitution:

Article IV,

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[Dragon]

There is no conflict between a republic and a democracy. A republic can also be a democracy. Those republics that aren't democracies are, instead, aristocracies.

Those who say "we're a republic not a democracy" are really saying, "we're an aristocratic republic not a democratic republic."

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

 

[The T]

Here's an interesting article on what Benjamin Franklin said regarding us being a Republic as opposed to a Democracy...

Benjamin Franklin Had It Right

Never, ever, not once, not on one single occasion, did Benjamin Franklin imply that there is ANY contrast or conflict between the concepts of "republic" and "democracy."

The article you linked begins with a straw man and continues with completely bullshit.

THERE IS NO OPPOSITION BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND DEMOCRACY. A REPUBLIC CAN BE DEMOCRATIC OR NOT. IF IT'S NOT, IT'S ARISTOCRATIC. THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, THEREFORE, WANT AN ARISTOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

^^Utter YAKSQUEEZE^^ Coming from a Commie.

 

[Dragon]

^^Utter YAKSQUEEZE^^ Coming from a Commie.

When you are reduced to name-calling it proves you have no argument.

There is no conflict between a republic and a democracy. A republic can also be a democracy. Those republics that aren't democracies are, instead, aristocracies.

Those who say "we're a republic not a democracy" are really saying, "we're an aristocratic republic not a democratic republic."

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

Answer the question, Thomas.

 

[paulitician]

Here's an interesting article on what Benjamin Franklin said regarding us being a Republic as opposed to a Democracy...

Benjamin Franklin Had It Right

Never, ever, not once, not on one single occasion, did Benjamin Franklin imply that there is ANY contrast or conflict between the concepts of "republic" and "democracy."

The article you linked begins with a straw man and continues with completely bullshit.

THERE IS NO OPPOSITION BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND DEMOCRACY. A REPUBLIC CAN BE DEMOCRATIC OR NOT. IF IT'S NOT, IT'S ARISTOCRATIC. THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, THEREFORE, WANT AN ARISTOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

Obviously no. If you don't like that article,you're free to go research what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject. He explains it much better than i can. We are a Republic,not a Democracy. There is a difference.

 

[The T]

^^Utter YAKSQUEEZE^^ Coming from a Commie.

When you are reduced to name-calling it proves you have no argument.

There is no conflict between a republic and a democracy. A republic can also be a democracy. Those republics that aren't democracies are, instead, aristocracies.

Those who say "we're a republic not a democracy" are really saying, "we're an aristocratic republic not a democratic republic."

Do YOU want an aristocracy?

Answer the question, Thomas.

I already did. Deal with it.

 

[Dragon]

Obviously no. If you don't like that article,you're free to go research what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject. He explains it much better than i can. We are a Republic,not a Democracy. There is a difference.

There is a difference, but there is no opposition. A republic is a form of government in which elected representatives pass the laws. A DEMOCRATIC republic is one in which the representatives are chosen by popular election and the people have ultimate sovereignty. An ARISTOCRATIC republic is one in which only a privileged few determine the course of government.

Again: a republic is either democratic or aristocratic. When you say that you want a republic, not a democracy, you are saying you want an aristocratic republic, because there is no third alternative; a republic that is not a democracy IS an aristocracy.

Do you want an aristocracy?