What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Would you support this law?

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
20,937
Reaction score
17,567
Points
2,445
I have always heard that Democracy was nothing more than mob rule and not what our country is.

Well, the next time you ''hear'' that, stop the person making the contention and ask them what they mean by democracy.

There's ''democracy'' (meaning merely the popular type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically)

And then there's "A Democracy'' which is a form of government. (The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of ''a Democracy'' being ''Rule by Omnipotent Majority.'')

In ''a Democracy,'' The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be ''a Direct Democracy,'' or ''a Representative Democracy.''

Additionally, in ''A Democracy" there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (meaning any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority.

This double meaning of Democracy, a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of government, should to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding the subject, for the sake of sound understanding. Though the effort to do so is seldom made.
 
Last edited:
OP
Golfing Gator

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
85,776
Reaction score
24,849
Points
2,220
Location
Midwest of America
Again, because it’s ridiculous rightwing political theater and libertarian nonsense.

There are over 2200 Federal programs alone that assist middle and low-income working Americans, disabled Americans, and those elderly.

It would be impossible to ‘review’ all 2200, and reprehensible to consider eliminating them.

Perhaps we do not need 2200 and we could consolidate them into 100,
 
OP
Golfing Gator

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
85,776
Reaction score
24,849
Points
2,220
Location
Midwest of America

MarcATL

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
36,189
Reaction score
15,198
Points
1,590
Sounds like a good law to me OP!
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
12,618
Points
2,220
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
...and every member of the NSA, CIA, FBI, & DOJ must undergo a pokygraph test and a performance review from outside the agency to ensure the individuals are not criminal or partisanly weopanized.

Absolutely - I'm in for both.
pokygraph?

partisanly?

weopanized?

Do you speak English?
 

DigitalDrifter

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
42,606
Reaction score
19,517
Points
2,290
Location
Oregon
Every program in the Fed Govt has to be looked at freshly at least once every four years to determine if it is still needed

I've said for many years that EVERY law (outside of our Constitutional rights of course) should have a sunset clause, and in order to extend any law would require Congress or the people to vote to retain them.
 

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
87,091
Reaction score
55,832
Points
2,645
pokygraph?

partisanly?

weopanized?

Do you speak English?

Oh Noooooooo.

It's the grammar police, Rear Admiral, the guy who learned to read from the names written on the backs of seamen's pants.

Wow, Rear Admiral, you are desperate tonight. I'm flattered, but don't you have some grooming to do?

:rolleyes:


You do know 'partisanly' is spelled correctly, right? Or perhaps you aren't familiar with that word, which I find impossible to believe?!

partisanly

-- adverb​

  1. In a partisan way.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, Rear Admiral.

:itsok:
 
Last edited:

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
15,466
Reaction score
9,746
Points
1,140
Location
South Carolina
How about we just get back to what is called for in the Constitution?
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
5,310
Reaction score
2,093
Points
210
How about one that says every member of Congress must actually read bills before they vote on them? All but impossible to enforce but voting on bills that are in some cases a thousand pages that no one has read is ridiculous.
I’ve always said, all bills should be single issue. Cut out the partisan bs and lay it in the table for everyone to read and understand.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
23,561
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
Oh Noooooooo.

It's the grammar police, Rear Admiral, the guy who learned to read from the names written on the backs of seamen's pants.

Wow, Rear Admiral, you are desperate tonight. I'm flattered, but don't you have some grooming to do?

:rolleyes:


You do know 'partisanly' is spelled correctly, right? Or perhaps you aren't familiar with that word, which I find impossible to believe?!

partisanly

-- adverb​

  1. In a partisan way.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, Rear Admiral.

:itsok:
I find it comical that he has put himself up as an expert, but after admittedly spending a career in the military and having a daughter who at some point served in the CAVALRY, he still does not understand that is not the Calvary which, intelligent people will agree, was the hill on which Jesus was crucified.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
5,310
Reaction score
2,093
Points
210
“Every program” would include social security and Medicare… every four years.

If that ain’t a sunset nothing is.

Wouldn’t it be great to have SS and Medicare become political footballs every four years?

Yea . No.

But Republicans have proposed just that. (Rick Scott)
But what is worse, having a program that never changes, and gets outdated as the years go by and needs to be revamped from time to time, or having Congress fight over what needs to be in the program? I think both are losing propositions.

Do we really think anyone would actually vote to cut someone’s SS or Medicare? I don’t think they would.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
3,655
Points
210
When Social Security was enacted, only 5.4% of the population was over 65.

When Medicare was enacted in 1965, 9% of the population was over 65.

Today, 16 percent of the population is over 65.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the population is supporting a larger and larger percentage of the population.

This fact cannot be debunked.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.
Many, many do. And still pay FICA taxes on their income, including their SS income.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
23,561
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
Holy fuck! You’re a retard. You don’t have to PASS anything to know what’s in it away from the dog of controversy (whatever that shit might mean).

In order to know what’s in it, all you have to do is have you and your staff read it and review it. That is supposed to be accomplished BEFORE you vote on it. And it can be done inside the Capitol and inside the lawmakers’ respective Offices and without regard to any alleged “fog of controversy.”

Why is it so difficult for retards like you to grasp that fact?
Bbbut, bbbut, bbbut that would require them to do what they are being paid to do. That is contrary to the democrat way of thinking. The world owes them a living just for being born, don'tcha know.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
23,561
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
But what is worse, having a program that never changes, and gets outdated as the years go by and needs to be revamped from time to time, or having Congress fight over what needs to be in the program? I think both are losing propositions.

Do we really think anyone would actually vote to cut someone’s SS or Medicare? I don’t think they would.
They don't call it the third rail of politics for nothing.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top