"We Are Not A Democracy!"

[nodoginnafight]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies








Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

And we are not set up for rule by the people.. or by the majority.... we have a constitution to protect against it

Go kill yourself and make the world a better place

Dave, man ....
I get it, you are really ticked at Truth. But do you really want to post stuff like this?

 

[DiamondDave]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies








Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

And we are not set up for rule by the people.. or by the majority.... we have a constitution to protect against it

Go kill yourself and make the world a better place

Dave, man ....
I get it, you are really ticked at Truth. But do you really want to post stuff like this?

Ticked off by TDM's repeated lying after she has been destroyed...

Let us bring up this thread again.. for people to see how she was throttled on this.. including her little Jefferson quotes (you know.. Jefferson.. who stated that democracy is "impracticable beyond the limits of a town")

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-someone-who-seeks-their-own-enslavement.html

 

[DiamondDave]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies








Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

And we are not set up for rule by the people.. or by the majority.... we have a constitution to protect against it

Go kill yourself and make the world a better place

A pure democracy is not the same as Democracy is it?


your quote from me is right huh?

EVERY dictionary and encyclopedia in the world agree with me

Yet you call it a democracy here.. and say it is not a democracy in other threads...

A pure democracy is a pure democracy... it is in fact democracy at its very essence..

You, *****, are an idiot and a habitual liar... I suggest suicide as the cure to your problem

 

[Nosmo King]

a democracy is the right name for many types of government.

We are included in that.

I think the right cooked up that lime of BS to demean the democractic party.

The same as they cooked up calling it the democrat party instead of using its proper name.

Or is it a way for the minority to justify trying to cram their agenda down the throats of the majority???

Please cite an example.

 

[nodoginnafight]

a democracy is the right name for many types of government.

We are included in that.

I think the right cooked up that lime of BS to demean the democractic party.

The same as they cooked up calling it the democrat party instead of using its proper name.

Or is it a way for the minority to justify trying to cram their agenda down the throats of the majority???

Please cite an example.

An example of what? The GOP trying to cram their minority agenda down the throats of the majority?

Easy -

In 2009, there were a record 67 filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number that occurred in the entire 20-year period between 1950 and 1969.

By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress. During the 111th Congress, more than 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required by Rule XXII.

 

[Nosmo King]

Or is it a way for the minority to justify trying to cram their agenda down the throats of the majority???

Please cite an example.

An example of what? The GOP trying to cram their minority agenda down the throats of the majority?

Easy -

In 2009, there were a record 67 filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number that occurred in the entire 20-year period between 1950 and 1969.

By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress. During the 111th Congress, more than 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required by Rule XXII.

But those examples are drawn from specific rules in the Senate and House of Representatives and are not pertinent to our national electoral process.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Please cite an example.

An example of what? The GOP trying to cram their minority agenda down the throats of the majority?

Easy -

In 2009, there were a record 67 filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number that occurred in the entire 20-year period between 1950 and 1969.

By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress. During the 111th Congress, more than 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required by Rule XXII.

But those examples are drawn from specific rules in the Senate and House of Representatives and are not pertinent to our national electoral process.

So?

You asked for an example of what I posted and I gave it to you.

Don't like how it worked out for you? Want to redefine your request? Sure, go ahead.

Just tell me what it is that you want an example of now and I'll do my best.

 

[Nosmo King]

An example of what? The GOP trying to cram their minority agenda down the throats of the majority?

Easy -

In 2009, there were a record 67 filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress -- double the number that occurred in the entire 20-year period between 1950 and 1969.

By the time the 111th Congress adjourned in December 2010, the number of filibusters had swelled to 137 for the entire two-year term of the 111th Congress. During the 111th Congress, more than 400 bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives -- many with broad bipartisan support -- died in the Senate without ever having been debated or voted on because of the inability to obtain the 60 votes required by Rule XXII.

But those examples are drawn from specific rules in the Senate and House of Representatives and are not pertinent to our national electoral process.

So?

You asked for an example of what I posted and I gave it to you.

Don't like how it worked out for you? Want to redefine your request? Sure, go ahead.

Just tell me what it is that you want an example of now and I'll do my best.

I think the intent of the OP and this thread is to determine whether or not our form of government complies with a definition of Democracy. Several definitions have been offered. But your complaint seems centered on Congressional procedural issues, not the make up of our form of national governance.

 

[Truthmatters]

a democracy is the right name for many types of government.

We are included in that.

I think the right cooked up that lime of BS to demean the democractic party.

The same as they cooked up calling it the democrat party instead of using its proper name.

Or is it a way for the minority to justify trying to cram their agenda down the throats of the majority???

Please cite an example.

what exactly do you think the tea party members do in congress?

they try to stop the majority from exersizing the majoritys will.

 

[tjvh]

Why do RWers say that so much?

What's the point being made?

Yes, we are a Republic, but we are a Democratic Republic.

Most say democracy for short.

So why make such a point about it?

What do you think you're accomplishing by that?

Because some people have the misconception that mob rules is actually how things are done.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you dont like the system our founders set up?

 

[nodoginnafight]

But those examples are drawn from specific rules in the Senate and House of Representatives and are not pertinent to our national electoral process.

So?

You asked for an example of what I posted and I gave it to you.

Don't like how it worked out for you? Want to redefine your request? Sure, go ahead.

Just tell me what it is that you want an example of now and I'll do my best.

I think the intent of the OP and this thread is to determine whether or not our form of government complies with a definition of Democracy. Several definitions have been offered. But your complaint seems centered on Congressional procedural issues, not the make up of our form of national governance.

I was not responding to the OP. I was responding to the question of why so many on the far right are stressing the republic part of our democratic republic and de-emphasizing the democratic aspect of it. I tried to link the appropriate quotes in my comment to make that as clear as possible. Sorry, if I misled you.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why do RWers say that so much?

What's the point being made?

Yes, we are a Republic, but we are a Democratic Republic.

Most say democracy for short.

So why make such a point about it?

What do you think you're accomplishing by that?

Because some people have the misconception that mob rules is actually how things are done.

If it is a large enough "mob" then they will get what they want, eventually.

 

[Katzndogz]

The system of government our founders set up was a republic with a representative democracy overseen by strict rules of separation of powers.

Ignorance of the difference between democracy and representation in a republic has given us the adulterated view that obama has complete authority because he received 51% of the vote. The representatives in the Senate and Congress have no voice, obama is the supreme leader Their job is not to limit his actions only to those achieved with the advise and consent of the people's representatives, but rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. If we were a democracy instead of a republic we would have no need of either senators or congressmen. We would elect a king, democratically of course.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So you dont like the system our founders set up?

Why do you hate apostrophes?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

'

Apostrophes, use 'em if you need 'em.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you hate democracy?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The system of government our founders set up was a republic with a representative democracy overseen by strict rules of separation of powers.

Ignorance of the difference between democracy and representation in a republic has given us the adulterated view that obama has complete authority because he received 51% of the vote. The representatives in the Senate and Congress have no voice, obama is the supreme leader Their job is not to limit his actions only to those achieved with the advise and consent of the people's representatives, but rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. If we were a democracy instead of a republic we would have no need of either senators or congressmen. We would elect a king, democratically of course.

There is a middle ground. It's where most of us reside and what most of us are comfortable with. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. Balance is the key.

 

[Katzndogz]

The system of government our founders set up was a republic with a representative democracy overseen by strict rules of separation of powers.

Ignorance of the difference between democracy and representation in a republic has given us the adulterated view that obama has complete authority because he received 51% of the vote. The representatives in the Senate and Congress have no voice, obama is the supreme leader Their job is not to limit his actions only to those achieved with the advise and consent of the people's representatives, but rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. If we were a democracy instead of a republic we would have no need of either senators or congressmen. We would elect a king, democratically of course.

There is a middle ground. It's where most of us reside and what most of us are comfortable with. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. Balance is the key.

No it's really not a balancing approach. Democracy is tyranny. A republic is by representation. The two interests cannot be balanced by permitting just a little bit of tyranny.

This is the way it has worked out. The rules of government apply to conservatives. They don't apply to liberals because they never make a mistake. They are always right and everything they want to do is always the best way. Therefore merely opposing them is wrong.

Bush approved waterboarding which liberals opposed as being torture and against the rules of a civilized society. Yet, obama approves outright murder, without evidence or benefit of trial. This is reasonable to liberals. No court, no senate, no congress should interfere in the formulation or application of his hit list. It cannot even be questioned. Bush might make a mistake and waterboard an innocent person. obama, as a liberal, cannot make a mistake.

Liberals believe that conservatives should not punish immigrant children for the crimes of their parents in coming here illegally. But, liberals also believe that killing a 16 year old boy is reasonable because his father is a terrorist. Even if the child did nothing wrong.

Non representative democracy is tyranny. There is no other way around it. Either you like the tyranny, in which case it's a good thing, or you don't.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The system of government our founders set up was a republic with a representative democracy overseen by strict rules of separation of powers.

Ignorance of the difference between democracy and representation in a republic has given us the adulterated view that obama has complete authority because he received 51% of the vote. The representatives in the Senate and Congress have no voice, obama is the supreme leader Their job is not to limit his actions only to those achieved with the advise and consent of the people's representatives, but rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. If we were a democracy instead of a republic we would have no need of either senators or congressmen. We would elect a king, democratically of course.

There is a middle ground. It's where most of us reside and what most of us are comfortable with. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. Balance is the key.

No it's really not a balancing approach. Democracy is tyranny. A republic is by representation. The two interests cannot be balanced by permitting just a little bit of tyranny.

This is the way it has worked out. The rules of government apply to conservatives. They don't apply to liberals because they never make a mistake. They are always right and everything they want to do is always the best way. Therefore merely opposing them is wrong.

Bush approved waterboarding which liberals opposed as being torture and against the rules of a civilized society. Yet, obama approves outright murder, without evidence or benefit of trial. This is reasonable to liberals. No court, no senate, no congress should interfere in the formulation or application of his hit list. It cannot even be questioned. Bush might make a mistake and waterboard an innocent person. obama, as a liberal, cannot make a mistake.

Liberals believe that conservatives should not punish immigrant children for the crimes of their parents in coming here illegally. But, liberals also believe that killing a 16 year old boy is reasonable because his father is a terrorist. Even if the child did nothing wrong.

Non representative democracy is tyranny. There is no other way around it. Either you like the tyranny, in which case it's a good thing, or you don't.

Democracy is not tyranny. It is government by the consent of the governed. Big difference. That's why - under our system - if the majority is big enough, they get what they want. Two-thirds can re-write the Constitution if they want.

Representation without democracy is tyranny. Absolute power in the hands of an elite ruling class - who do not answer to the people they represent - is tyranny.

That's why our system balances these competing interests. It's a fluid balance that sometimes shifts in one direction and sometimes shifts in another. It is the balance that prevents tyranny.