Dems Without a Prayer!!

[Edward]

Have you tried anarchy ?-----

Anarchy does not work, anarchy cannot exist, for it is the brother of democracy. In fact, anarchy is democracy at its purest. An example, "eighty people vote to march on fourty others, and to force them to do their will," the "fourty others unite to do the same." Around the world we have seen legislative bodies erupt in fistfights and brawling. Democracy, and especially representative democracy is about the will of each individual, one will by sheer numerical power will override the will of the other. This is anarchy, it is disguised behind law, behind democracy and behind civilized conduct but nevertheless it is a state of anarchy.

We as a nation have been in a civil war since we were founded. This war has generally been carried on with words instead of with guns because everyone realizes it is in their best interests to do so, but when one faction realizes it is no longer in their best interest to participate in the false and impotent system that this nation adheres to it erupts in war. This especially is notable with the actual Civil War. The south would no longer bow to the will of the north who by sheer numerical power was abusing their rights so they rebelled and took it upon themselves to defend their rights, their lands, their families and their country. The north, feeling that this could not be allowed to go on sent in the military to put down these people and to force them to obey. The southerners lost, the northerners won. The battle had been fought and the people had spoken. Freedom for no one. Liberty can take a hike.

 

[Bonnie]

Edward...She crossed the line when she advocated using force to prohibit women from having abortions. Saddam Hussein is no different, except he didn't have the majority supporting him or giving him the right to speak. She and Saddam Hussein are the same kind of person, but unlike Saddam Hussein she hides behind the voting booth. She is not a devout Christian, instead she is a devout "do what I say or else I will use the law to force you do what I say" kind of person which is not Christian in the least. Nor do I intend on watching what I say. Why don't you and Bonnie go blow up an abortion clinic. Wait. You won't do that, you prefer to use the law to accomplish your evil designs.

I never advocated force in anything I have said here. You have chosen to completely ignore everything I have said, and instead twisted it to your liking to prove your sick point of view. How anyone in their right mind considers those that want to help innocent unborn babies have the right to live.. as being evil, and akin to Saddam Hussein, is not only completely innnaccurate but quite dillusional. How can you think it's okay to talk to people that way just to get your point across?? But it's okay for you to say the ends justfy the means..... What kind of Christianity is that? For the record I believe in very limited government in almost every area but preserving human life. To suggest the only reason women are having abortions is because of rape is insane. Rape makes up only 2to 3% of the abortions performed.

Bombing abortion clinics is also murder and not my style at all. As far as my Chrisitianity goes, I have volunteered many hours of my time working at shelters for women who have decided against having abortions some have been raped, and have asked for help from churches. They get a place to live, education, food, and health care all paid for by private donations. when they have the baby they can either keep it or give the baby away, their CHOICE!

I think you are the one who needs to do a little soul searching to figure out why your so irrationally angry and can't discuss this topic with civility and intelligence.

 

[dilloduck]

Anarchy does not work, anarchy cannot exist, for it is the brother of democracy. In fact, anarchy is democracy at its purest. An example, "eighty people vote to march on fourty others, and to force them to do their will," the "fourty others unite to do the same." Around the world we have seen legislative bodies erupt in fistfights and brawling. Democracy, and especially representative democracy is about the will of each individual, one will by sheer numerical power will override the will of the other. This is anarchy, it is disguised behind law, behind democracy and behind civilized conduct but nevertheless it is a state of anarchy.

We as a nation have been in a civil war since we were founded. This war has generally been carried on with words instead of with guns because everyone realizes it is in their best interests to do so, but when one faction realizes it is no longer in their best interest to participate in the false and impotent system that this nation adheres to it erupts in war. This especially is notable with the actual Civil War. The south would no longer bow to the will of the north who by sheer numerical power was abusing their rights so they rebelled and took it upon themselves to defend their rights, their lands, their families and their country. The north, feeling that this could not be allowed to go on sent in the military to put down these people and to force them to obey. The southerners lost, the northerners won. The battle had been fought and the people had spoken. Freedom for no one. Liberty can take a hike.

So what do you recommend as the best from of government , angry one?

 

[Edward]

Where has a democracy lead to a tyranny?

Well, lets start with James Madison's views on democracy, "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Our Founding Fathers resoundingly voted against, and argued against a democratic America. They understand the natural man well to know that democracy was "imcompatible with person security or the rights of property," that democracies have "in general been as short lived in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Numerous examples could be given of democracy run amok.

I could start with the democratically elected dictators of the world, among these being Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler. I could provide examples of legislatures erupting into violence including our own. These among other things show that democracy itself is what the Founding Fathers said it was. You may not believe this, you may imply that James Madison and other of our Founding Fathers were ignorant and liars but you cannot deny that democracies have always failed and will always fail. The more democratic we become the closer we come to our own death as a nation.

 

[Edward]

So what do you recommend as the best from of government , angry one?

The one our Founding Fathers recommended. A republic, which we no longer are.

 

[Edward]

I will no longer resort to obscene, vulgar or otherwise inflammatory speech for reasons of my own.

 

[dilloduck]

The one our Founding Fathers recommended. A republic, which we no longer are.

you mean a DEMOCRATIC republic?

 

[dmp]

I will no longer resort to obscene, vulgar or otherwise inflammatory speech for reasons of my own.

Thank you Edward.


Is that UT as in University of Tn? or Utah k-12 schools?

 

[Edward]

you mean a DEMOCRATIC republic?

No I do not. Not once did our Founding Fathers refer to a democratic republic; whenever they have spoken of a democracy they have denounced it, and referred to it in the most unkind terms.

One definition of a republic is, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

There is no such thing as a "democratic republic," it is a term coined by supporters of democracy who knew that if they could succeed at qualifying the term republic by adding democracy that they could soon do away with the term republic altogether and create a democracy. Not once in our Founding documents is the term democracy ever used, and in the debates of the Congressional convention the idea was discussed and dismissed summarily in favor of a Republic. The Founders knew the difference between the two and they rejected the one.

 

[dilloduck]

No I do not. Not once did our Founding Fathers refer to a democratic republic; whenever they have spoken of a democracy they have denounced it, and referred to it in the most unkind terms.

One definition of a republic is, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

There is no such thing as a "democratic republic," it is a term coined by supporters of democracy who knew that if they could succeed at qualifying the term republic by adding democracy that they could soon do away with the term republic altogether and create a democracy. Not once in our Founding documents is the term democracy ever used, and in the debates of the Congressional convention the idea was discussed and dismissed summarily in favor of a Republic. The Founders knew the difference between the two and they rejected the one.

Are these elected officers chosen by people hiding in a voting booth?

 

[Edward]

Are these elected officers chosen by people hiding in a voting booth?

Originally they were not, now because our Republic has been distorted people vote for their elected representatives.

In the beginning, the people did not vote for the President, Senators were not elected by the people, and Judges were not elected by the people. The House on the other hand was directly elected by a small district of people to represent them in the Congress.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they would be shocked at the following democratic reversals.

1) the President was made to be directly elected by the people;
2) the Senators were made to be directly elected by the people;

Now we even see a movement to elect judges. The people will stop at nothing. They seek to control all three branches of government. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled.

P.S. Now the President, the House and the Senate are all controlled by and directly responsible to the people. The only branch of government left to check the people is the Judiciary. This upsets many people because they believe it is undemocratic. Well guess what? It is and it should be. Some of our Founding Fathers predicted consolidation, where the people would elect the federal government directly. They knew this day would come and it has. Democracy is becoming more and more accepted as a fact of life. But I denounce it and call it an abomination.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally they were not, now because our Republic has been distorted people vote for their elected representatives.

In the beginning, the people did not vote for the President, Senators were not elected by the people, and Judges were not elected by the people. The House on the other hand was directly elected by a small district of people to represent them in the Congress.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they would be shocked at the following democratic reversals.

1) the President was made to be directly elected by the people;
2) the Senators were made to be directly elected by the people;

Now we even see a movement to elect judges. The people will stop at nothing. They seek to control all three branches of government. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled.

I guess the preamble was all just a bunch of filler then?

( Just who in the hell do all these "people" think there are anyway? ) the gall !!

 

[Edward]

I guess the preamble was all just a bunch of filler then?

The preamble was not a filler, it made it very clear where all government derives, for consent must be givened. The phrase, "We the people..." does not mean we the voters, or we the states, etc. It means "We the people..." Both voters, non-voters, representatives, and non-representatives. Many people like to read into the preamble a support for democracy but it just isn't there. Even the British would agree with that phrase, for their constitution protected the rights of the people, offering many protections that had previously not existed.

All government is of the people. That is what a republic is. All government is for the people. That is what a republic is. All government is not by the people. That is not what a republic is. That is a democracy.

P.S. Democracy is tyranny. It is an abomination. It is the government to be feared the most, for a king can be easily removed by force if he violates the rights of his subjects, a majority cannot be removed easily by force without much effort and violence and this is why democracies are always violent in their deaths.

 

[dilloduck]

The preamble was not a filler, it made it very clear where all government derives, for consent must be givened. The phrase, "We the people..." does not mean we the voters, or we the states, etc. It means "We the people..." Both voters, non-voters, representatives, and non-representatives. Many people like to read into the preamble a support for democracy but it just isn't there. Even the British would agree with that phrase, for their constitution protected the rights of the people, offering many protections that had previously not existed.

All government is of the people. That is what a republic is. All government is for the people. That is what a republic is. All government is not by the people. That is not what a republic is. That is a democracy.

P.S. Democracy is tyranny. It is an abomination. It is the government to be feared the most, for a king can be easily removed by force if he violates the rights of his subjects, a majority cannot be removed easily by force without much effort and violence and this is why democracies are always violent in their deaths.

then how does a republic choose it's leaders?

 

[Edward]

then how does a republic choose it's leaders?

I previously stated, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

Supreme power does not reside in the "people." It resides in a "body of citizens entitled to vote," and that supreme power is not exercised by the people, it is "exercised by elected officers and representatives," who are responsible not to the people, but to the "body of citizens entitled to vote," and responsible for "governing according to law."

Yet, in a true Republic as defined by our Founding Fathers, officials are selected through a filtering system. This system is to prevent direct election of all the branches of government, for the passions of the time would then cease all three branches, and deliberation would cease.

This is seen now with the threat to use the filibuster which is intended to end deliberation and to make the will of the people supreme. This is contrary to the republican principle and contrary to the mixed government that is associated with that. To make all branches, both state and federal responsible to the people is to make the people supreme and to place all government in their hands. This is no different than placing all government in the hands of a King.

Here a simple scenario: The people vote for their represenatives and their senators, and the President. The people demand that a certain law be passed, the House agrees because it is responsible to the people, the Senate also passes the law because it to is responsible to the people, and the President signs the law because he to is responsible to the people.

In the republic as our Founders created it this would not happen, instead the following scenario would most likely take place: The people vote for their representatives, but not for Senators and the President. The people demand that a certain law be passed, the House agrees because it is responsible to the people, the Senate deliberates and disagrees because it isn't responsible to the people but to the state legislatures, and it knowing that the law is in error chose to do the right thing regardless of the current beliefs of the electorate.

Of course in the situation above, the people could influence their legislatures, and thus the Senators but they would have a harder time doing it. The protection offered to the Senators is greater because the amount of people the people have to bring to account is greater. Our Founding Fathers created many checks, many balances, separated the branches, and yet kept them so intertwined that they needed each other to exist, and to control both themselves and the people, for government is intended to govern the people and itself. If the people is the sole agent of government in all instances than what interest does the government have in controlling itself or the people because it is responsible to those who voted for them, and to nothing else.

An example of this is the filibuster. Normally, the Senate would deliberate on this and it would take years to change a Senate rule and it would require a super-majority to do so, but today the Republicans know they have the support of the Republicans who apparently are in the majority and therefore have no need to control themselves or to place limits on the people.

 

[dilloduck]

I previously stated, "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

Supreme power does not reside in the "people." It resides in a "body of citizens entitled to vote," and that supreme power is not exercised by the people, it is "exercised by elected officers and representatives," who are responsible not to the people, but to the "body of citizens entitled to vote," and responsible for "governing according to law."

Yet, in a true Republic as defined by our Founding Fathers, officials are selected through a filtering system. This system is to prevent direct election of all the branches of government, for the passions of the time would then cease all three branches, and deliberation would cease.

This is seen now with the threat to use the filibuster which is intended to end deliberation and to make the will of the people supreme. This is contrary to the republican principle and contrary to the mixed government that is associated with that. To make all branches, both state and federal responsible to the people is to make the people supreme and to place all government in their hands. This is no different than placing all government in the hands of a King.

You are quite learned and eloquent but you just can't quite explain how these folks get to be "elected". What sort of "filtering system" are you speaking of?

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally they were not, now because our Republic has been distorted people vote for their elected representatives.

In the beginning, the people did not vote for the President, Senators were not elected by the people, and Judges were not elected by the people. The House on the other hand was directly elected by a small district of people to represent them in the Congress.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they would be shocked at the following democratic reversals.

1) the President was made to be directly elected by the people;
2) the Senators were made to be directly elected by the people;

Now we even see a movement to elect judges. The people will stop at nothing. They seek to control all three branches of government. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled.

P.S. Now the President, the House and the Senate are all controlled by and directly responsible to the people. The only branch of government left to check the people is the Judiciary. This upsets many people because they believe it is undemocratic. Well guess what? It is and it should be. Some of our Founding Fathers predicted consolidation, where the people would elect the federal government directly. They knew this day would come and it has. Democracy is becoming more and more accepted as a fact of life. But I denounce it and call it an abomination.

The President is, and always has been, elected by the Electoral College. We elect representatives that promise to vote for the candidate we want.

Now the Senator thing was changed with Amendment 17, and I believe that State Representation in the Federal Government pretty much ended at that point. Removing State powers began after the Civil War, and continues today.

However it is Constitutional, voting directly for Senators, clearly it is as it is in the Constitution as ratified by at least 3/4 of the States after a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

 

[dilloduck]

The President is, and always has been, elected by the Electoral College. We elect representatives that promise to vote for the candidate we want.

Now the Senator thing was changed with Amendment 17, and I believe that State Representation in the Federal Government pretty much ended at that point. Removing State powers began after the Civil War, and continues today.

However it is Constitutional, voting directly for Senators, clearly it is as it is in the Constitution as ratified by at least 3/4 of the States after a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

government would be SO much easier if we just didn't have all these people wanting to get involved !

 

[no1tovote4]

government would be SO much easier if we just didn't have all these people wanting to get involved !

Well, that almost sounds like they want it to be Democratic or something....

 

[Edward]

You are quite learned and eloquent but you just can't quite explain how these folks get to be "elected". What sort of "filtering system" are you speaking of?

I cannot believe someone could be so uneducated and uninformed. It looks like you want me to teach a poli-sci class on this thread. I am unwilling to do so. I will however make a few comments regarding the system as it was intended by the Founders. I will keep myself to original quotes, and not provide much commentary on this since I feel that will detract from what the Founders actually believed and created.

We all know that the Founders created three branches of government. These being, 1) the legislative, 2) the judiciary, and 3) the executive.

Let's see what Alexander Hamilton has to say on the choosing of a President.

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

Here he makes some pertinent points, these being, 1) that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of a President, and 2) that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to that station, and acting under circumstance favorable to deliberation. How did he suggest that both of these be accomplished? By placing a body of persons in between the people and the President. It was important that they deliberated as to who the President should be. The term "qualities" is used. Our Founders thought that a President should have the requisite qualities, not the requisite platform.

Hamilton goes on to say, "The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes."

So in other words, the filtering system for the President is what we now call the electoral college.

But let's now turn our attention to the judiciary and the legislature. I won't quote here, even though several come to mind for the sake of the limitation placed upon my time, having to type such would require time that is at this time limited.

The Legislature is divided into two houses, the first being the House, which is directly elected by the people. The second, being the Senate, which is appointed by the state legislatures. The reason the legislature was divided was for one branch to be accountable to the people, and the other to the states thus depriving both the states and the people of complete control of the federal government. The filter system in the case of the Senate is the state legislatures. In the case of the judiciary, judges are nominated by the President (who is removed from the people) and confirmed by the Senate (who is removed from the people) thus making judges removed not once but twice from the people (i.e., the electors, and the President, and the States and the Senators).

This worked for years, but proponents of democracy feel that this system is not a good one because it allows for deliberative government, which is responsible only indirectly to the people. In fact, extreme proponents have actually advocated electing Supreme Court justices, they would need a constitutional amendment to do so but that has not stopped them in the past. I have no problem with amending the Constitution except when it starts messing with the system that was originally put in place by our Founding Fathers.

Unforunately I do not have time to continue this post at this time.