"Direct Democracy" and the OWS

You have reading comprehension issues, obviously. I suggest you read what the OP actually says.

Of course, you just want to talk about the diction used on blogs today. That's an order of magnitude more inane than I thought the OP was.

Any other blog posts use words that made you angry today? Bonus points if it also confirmed your suspicion that you're the only one left who loves America and the Constitution.
 
However, a direct democracy is a system that facilitates oppression of minorities.

Not necessarily. That's only true if it is implemented without any constitutional checks resembling the Bill of Rights. And the same is true of a representative democracy, or for that matter any sort of government. Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly a democracy (of any kind), but neither was it protective of the rights of minorities.

To protect minorities is one reason we must place safeguards on government. It really has little do with the question of democracy, pro- or anti-.
 
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​
[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

You have a guy in Obama's neighborhood called Ayers. Ayers is a huge assistant to a man called Hugo Chavez. Oh and Ayers adopted son of another terrorist called Chesa is also an adviser to El Blockhead.

Oh and the Bolivar Revolution called for direct democracy.

Funny how things link up in the end n'est pas?
 
You have reading comprehension issues, obviously. I suggest you read what the OP actually says.

Of course, you just want to talk about the diction used on blogs today. That's an order of magnitude more inane than I thought the OP was.

Any other blog posts use words that made you angry today? Bonus points if it also confirmed your suspicion that you're the only one left who loves America and the Constitution.
Well, it's the manifesto of the OWS, posted in many places. I can't say if the OWS manifesto will change, yet again, but that is the current one.

And, if supporting the Constitution of the United States of America and asking others to consider doing the same is inanity in your mind, then inane I am, in your world.

;)
 
However, a direct democracy is a system that facilitates oppression of minorities.

Not necessarily. That's only true if it is implemented without any constitutional checks resembling the Bill of Rights. And the same is true of a representative democracy, or for that matter any sort of government. Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly a democracy (of any kind), but neither was it protective of the rights of minorities.

To protect minorities is one reason we must place safeguards on government. It really has little do with the question of democracy, pro- or anti-.
Maybe not necessarily, but a constitutional republic does not facilitate oppression of minorities as a direct democracy does.
 
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​
[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.

Interesting indeed. :lol:
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.

Just the way I am. I like our Constitution.

Others' mileages vary, obviously.

Again..that was not the point.

But I am reasonably sure there are parts of the Constitution you do not like.
 
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.

That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Deal with it.

And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.

DEAL WITH IT.

The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.

Free speech is.

DEAL WITH IT.

:lol:
 
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​
[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.

Interesting indeed. :lol:



You support this?

Occupy Wall Street: Nancy Pelosi comes out in support of protesters | Mail Online

article-2046948-0E481DB700000578-881_296x198.jpg


article-2046948-0E4B575B00000578-757_634x431.jpg


article-2046948-0E4A2A6000000578-567_634x423.jpg
 
That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Deal with it.

And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.

DEAL WITH IT.

The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.

Free speech is.

DEAL WITH IT.

:lol:

DO YOU HAVE YOUR STUPID CAP ON TODAY? Traffic is commerce, but thanks for playing.
 
People thinking this can't happen?

Check it out. There is even a handbook out there.


In 2006 the Communal Councils were allotted $ 900 million and in 2007 that money will be doubled to $1.8 billion million, to assist in the transfer of power to the people.

According to news reports, David Velasquez, 28, the new minister of People's Power for Participation and Social Development has said that his goal is to make the whole Venezuelan State apparatus "unnecessary" by replacing its functions with "communal councils."

It is essential that a Bolivarian Revolutionary Committees Movement composed of individuals who have studied the Third Universal Theory expounded in The Green Book rise to the task of ensuring a smooth transition toward the State of the Masses, where People's Conferences decide and People's Committees execute.

The Revolutionary Committees must guide and warn the masses against the efforts that pro-dictatorship forces and media will use in an attempt to derail the process of direct participatory democracy - People's Power - where legislation is carried out by all people without political parties via local People's Conferences and elected executive People's Committees that replace councils and ministries.
 
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.​
[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

You have a guy in Obama's neighborhood called Ayers. Ayers is a huge assistant to a man called Hugo Chavez. Oh and Ayers adopted son of another terrorist called Chesa is also an adviser to El Blockhead.

Oh and the Bolivar Revolution called for direct democracy.

Funny how things link up in the end n'est pas?

Yeah. Like George HW Bush releasing a terrorist, Orlando Bosch, who blew up a plane killing over 70 people and supported a terrorist Osama Bin Laden, in Afghanistan, who used planes to kill over 3000 people while his son, George W. Bush, who owned a business started by Osama Bin Laden's brother Salim, read a book.

Love this guilt by association thing.

It's a blade that cuts both ways. :clap2:
 
I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.

Interesting indeed. :lol:
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.

Just the way I am. I like our Constitution.

Others' mileages vary, obviously.

Again..that was not the point.

....
Well, the point of my OP is that a direct democracy is prima facie inconsistent with our Constitution. Because of that, those who support a group who advocates unconstitutional ideals may want to consider a few facts.

.... But I am reasonably sure there are parts of the Constitution you do not like.
I do know that I am fascinating, but I am not the topic, nor are anyone's fantasies about my views.
 
Last edited:
I haven't heard any call for Nullificaiton or Secession from the so-called left. The behavior of OWS "mobs' has been mostly calm and non violent, off course there are always fools on the fringer of every movement - McVeigh, Rudolph, Roeder - are recent examples from the right.

In essence the OWS movement is a push back to the rhetoric of the New Right. Their call for less regulation has incited the OWS movement which is a legitimate counterforce to the special interests which control the Congress and now do so with immunity (see: 588 U.S. 2010).

Direct Democracy is a problem, one foreseen by the fouders. Today their worst fear are realized, as petitions to change the State Constitution in California are put forth by special interests every cycle and marketed in shopping centers using the tools of propagandists.

I fear Direct Democracy less than the movement by the far right, focused as it is on establishing a 'Christian' Theocratic Plutocracy.
 
And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.

DEAL WITH IT.

The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.

Free speech is.

DEAL WITH IT.

:lol:

DO YOU HAVE YOUR STUPID CAP ON TODAY? Traffic is commerce, but thanks for playing.

Do you have your stupid cap on?

Congress is charged with "regulating" commerce.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Seriously man..you make this to easy.
 
The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.

Free speech is.

DEAL WITH IT.

:lol:

DO YOU HAVE YOUR STUPID CAP ON TODAY? Traffic is commerce, but thanks for playing.

Do you have your stupid cap on?

Congress is charged with "regulating" commerce.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Seriously man..you make this to easy.

LOL Is that your rebuttal? That has to be the weakest shit ever posted on this board. :lmao:
 
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
[Emphasis added]

Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.

Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.

I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.

Interesting indeed. :lol:

Every American Should Oppose Direct Democracy. How long do you think it would have taken to pass Civil Rights in a Direct Democracy?

This Country was set up the way it was for a reason. Direct Democracy gives the 51% Majority tyrannical Power over the Rest on every issue. If you actually think that would be a good system, you are an idiot.
For the very same reasons the left is gunning for the Electoral College.

As the op stated? The Founders were very wise men.
 
I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.

Interesting indeed. :lol:

Every American Should Oppose Direct Democracy. How long do you think it would have taken to pass Civil Rights in a Direct Democracy?

This Country was set up the way it was for a reason. Direct Democracy gives the 51% Majority tyrannical Power over the Rest on every issue. If you actually think that would be a good system, you are an idiot.
For the very same reasons the left is gunning for the Electoral College.

As the op stated? The Founders were very wise men.

You really don't have any understanding of how the Constitution was debated and the compormises necessary for it to be promulgated, do you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top