Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #121
and all the dictionarys and encyclopedias lie too according to you?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do OWSers understand what they are calling for is tyranny?
- Thread starter Liberty
- Start date
and all the dictionarys and encyclopedias lie too according to you?
A constitutional republic, provided it's democratic, is a democracy. 'Democracy' is a general term for governments that are democratic by nature. Republics therefore can be democracies.
Republics are a Refined form of Democracy that Protect against Spontaneous Mob Rule, and more. We establish the Rule of Law, Due Process, Natural Protections of the Majority, Minority, and the Individual. We are a Federalist Minded Constitutional Republic, that is more interested in theory with the Establishment and Service of Truth and Justice, knowing that it will serve us all better at the end of the day, than Government by Impulse.
I bolded the non-useless portion of your post.
You wouldn't know Non Uselessness if it claimed you at a Lost and Found, or spanked your ass for running off. Fucking Idiot.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
- Thread starter
- #123
Why does the PUBLIC SCHOOLS continually LIE about the meaning of the word Democracy?
fixed.
and all the dictionarys and encyclopedias lie too according to you?
Why did you ignore the post earlier proving that the USA is a federal republic? Address that or stop asking questions. This is USMB not TMMB.
What is so hard for these people to understand of the rule of LAW and not of men (Democracy) tethered by common sense, Representative Government, and the will of the people.Republics are a Refined form of Democracy that Protect against Spontaneous Mob Rule, and more. We establish the Rule of Law, Due Process, Natural Protections of the Majority, Minority, and the Individual. We are a Federalist Minded Constitutional Republic, that is more interested in theory with the Establishment and Service of Truth and Justice, knowing that it will serve us all better at the end of the day, than Government by Impulse.
I bolded the non-useless portion of your post.
You wouldn't know Non Uselessness if it claimed you at a Lost and Found, or spanked your ass for running off. Fucking Idiot.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
I fail to see where the people are willing to give up thier liberty by and large except for about 30% of the perpetually stupid that are able to vote for tyranny.
SAT2
Senior Member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 1,061
- 64
- 48
why the FUCK would anyone want democracy? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner? Really? Who protects the minority in a democracy? Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived. A republic, however, is more based on the rule of law and more inclined to protect the rights of individuals. Just shows your ignorance.
We have protection for minorities in our system.
So, you have no idea what the difference between economic and social means? Also, can you cite a source that shows that people were FORCED to work in coal mines? I bet you can't because they chose to. Why are you against peoples rights to decide what to do with their own labor and decide what their labor is worth on their own terms?
Your comment is naive. There was little other work, and when they tried to negotiate on their own terms, the Pinkertons were called in.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
We're a representative democracy. As individuals have gained more political power, conservatives have protested against and sought to thwart that increase of power.
Steelplate
Bluesman
What is so hard for these people to understand of the rule of LAW and not of men (Democracy) tethered by common sense, Representative Government, and the will of the people.I bolded the non-useless portion of your post.
You wouldn't know Non Uselessness if it claimed you at a Lost and Found, or spanked your ass for running off. Fucking Idiot.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
I fail to see where the people are willing to give up thier liberty by and large except for about 30% of the perpetually stupid that are able to vote for tyranny.
Who makes the laws? Oh yeah.. men. Men who are fallible and can only see so far ahead. To think that Laws are static is moronic. Laws should always serve the people, if circumstances change where they are no longer serving the people, they need to be changed.
Federalism
First published Sun Jan 5, 2003; substantive revision Tue Mar 9, 2010
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between member units and common institutions. Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level have final authority and can be self governing in some issue area. Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities. The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles. The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal political orders. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often democratic, political order.
1. Taxonomy
2. History of Federalism in Western Thought
3. Reasons for Federalism
3.1 Reasons for a federal order rather than separate states or secession
3.2 Reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary state
4. Further Philosophical Issues
4.1 Issues of Constitutional and Institutional Design
4.2 Sources of Stability
4.3 Division of Power
4.4 Distributive Justice
4.5 Democratic Theory
4.6 Politics of Recognition
Bibliography
Historical
Contemporary
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
Federalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
First published Sun Jan 5, 2003; substantive revision Tue Mar 9, 2010
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between member units and common institutions. Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level have final authority and can be self governing in some issue area. Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities. The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles. The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal political orders. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often democratic, political order.
1. Taxonomy
2. History of Federalism in Western Thought
3. Reasons for Federalism
3.1 Reasons for a federal order rather than separate states or secession
3.2 Reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary state
4. Further Philosophical Issues
4.1 Issues of Constitutional and Institutional Design
4.2 Sources of Stability
4.3 Division of Power
4.4 Distributive Justice
4.5 Democratic Theory
4.6 Politics of Recognition
Bibliography
Historical
Contemporary
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
Federalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What is so hard for these people to understand of the rule of LAW and not of men (Democracy) tethered by common sense, Representative Government, and the will of the people.I bolded the non-useless portion of your post.
You wouldn't know Non Uselessness if it claimed you at a Lost and Found, or spanked your ass for running off. Fucking Idiot.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
I fail to see where the people are willing to give up thier liberty by and large except for about 30% of the perpetually stupid that are able to vote for tyranny.
Because they think the Laws will apply to Everyone but them. The Heart Attack comes when the Opposing Party takes Power. A True Federalist does not surrender Liberty without cause and Necessity, no matter which Party is running the Asylum.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
OWS protesters get pepper sprayed for breaking the law and are hailed as heroes. In syria, protesters call for revolution to overthrow a government that is the kind OWS is calling for, many get shot and killed by the government, and die anonymously. You people have no idea the type of horrific tyrannical government that your "revolution" will bring us. What gives YOU the right to choose how others live? Please disband and consider legal means of change, and while you are at it educate yourselves on what liberty really is...it is a government that secures liberty not a government that provides everything to a society of lazy degenerates. These OWSers, like the successful statist uprisings across the world have managed to do nothing to secure liberty, yet have secured tyranny in every country where the people demand free stuff.
A Global Revolution to Overthrow Statism - YouTube
Well, I'm behind fully behind OWS. I won't label all Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Libertarians etc... the way you do because that would be foolish.
You post indicates to me that you simply don't understand what OWS is really about. Where are you getting your information on OWS?
Would you like to exchange ideas with me and learn directly from the source - or do you prefer to believe what you are told by the MSM, RW sources and non-OWSers?
I will not sling petty insults at you.
I will address any issues or questions you bring up directly and without changing the subject etc...
I leave the invitation for reasonable and civil discussion open to you or anyone else who would like to rise above the usual bickering and puerile name-calling that is so often the norm here.
Steelplate
Bluesman
why the FUCK would anyone want democracy? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner? Really? Who protects the minority in a democracy? Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived. A republic, however, is more based on the rule of law and more inclined to protect the rights of individuals. Just shows your ignorance.
We have protection for minorities in our system.
So, you have no idea what the difference between economic and social means? Also, can you cite a source that shows that people were FORCED to work in coal mines? I bet you can't because they chose to. Why are you against peoples rights to decide what to do with their own labor and decide what their labor is worth on their own terms?
Your comment is naive. There was little other work, and when they tried to negotiate on their own terms, the Pinkertons were called in.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
We're a representative democracy. As individuals have gained more political power, conservatives have protested against and sought to thwart that increase of power.
These people have no clue of their own history. I live near the Coal Regions of Central Pennsylvania... I know about the Pinkertons and the worker's counter... the Molly Maguires.
They were the start of Unions and organized labor.... both sides had their thugs and let me tell you something.... what these spoiled people call thuggery these days is pure diplomacy as compared to what ended the Robber Baron days of America... it was bloody as hell.
But they don't teach that part of History in what the righties call "left wing" education... they get the glossed over rendition that makes people like Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan look like saints.
That's the problem with the right wing. They are offered a PG rated history, but reality was definitely NC-17.
[44] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead.
[45] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.
[46] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.Note I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to lie aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government"
[45] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.
[46] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.Note I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to lie aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government"
We're a representative democracy. As individuals have gained more political power, conservatives have protested against and sought to thwart that increase of power.
We are a Federalist Republic, more Specifically. You fail to grasp that.
why the FUCK would anyone want democracy? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner? Really? Who protects the minority in a democracy? Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived. A republic, however, is more based on the rule of law and more inclined to protect the rights of individuals. Just shows your ignorance.
We have protection for minorities in our system.
Your comment is naive. There was little other work, and when they tried to negotiate on their own terms, the Pinkertons were called in.
We are not a True Democracy. We utilize Democratic Tools in Part, in the Establishment and Operation of Our Republic. We have both Democratic and Nondemocratic Traits. Keep seeing only what you want to see.
We're a representative democracy. As individuals have gained more political power, conservatives have protested against and sought to thwart that increase of power.
These people have no clue of their own history. I live near the Coal Regions of Central Pennsylvania... I know about the Pinkertons and the worker's counter... the Molly Maguires.
They were the start of Unions and organized labor.... both sides had their thugs and let me tell you something.... what these spoiled people call thuggery these days is pure diplomacy as compared to what ended the Robber Baron days of America... it was bloody as hell.
But they don't teach that part of History in what the righties call "left wing" education... they get the glossed over rendition that makes people like Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan look like saints.
That's the problem with the right wing. They are offered a PG rated history, but reality was definitely NC-17.
The In Depth Truth is out there to be found, for those interested, both Right and Left. Now more so than ever before. You are painting False images.
SAT2
Senior Member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 1,061
- 64
- 48
These people have no clue of their own history. I live near the Coal Regions of Central Pennsylvania... I know about the Pinkertons and the worker's counter... the Molly Maguires.
They were the start of Unions and organized labor.... both sides had their thugs and let me tell you something.... what these spoiled people call thuggery these days is pure diplomacy as compared to what ended the Robber Baron days of America... it was bloody as hell.
But they don't teach that part of History in what the righties call "left wing" education... they get the glossed over rendition that makes people like Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan look like saints.
That's the problem with the right wing. They are offered a PG rated history, but reality was definitely NC-17.
SAT2
Senior Member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 1,061
- 64
- 48
The In Depth Truth is out there to be found, for those interested, both Right and Left. Now more so than ever before. You are painting False images.
I have not found you to do otherwise than that.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #137
We're a representative democracy. As individuals have gained more political power, conservatives have protested against and sought to thwart that increase of power.
We are a Federalist Republic, more Specifically. You fail to grasp that.
America: Republic or Democracy?
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance
SAT2
Senior Member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 1,061
- 64
- 48
Thank you, Truthmatters! I read that years ago and had lost the link. An excellent rebuttal.
America: Republic or Democracy?
America: Republic or Democracy?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 455
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 488
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 747
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 571
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 85K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 116
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8099
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-