Would you support this law?

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show me a post attacking it. You only attack Republicans for the debt.

From just today even...

Trans insurrectionist storm OK capital

Imprison all those insurrectionists... :auiqs.jpg: Apples to oranges

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[MarcATL]

Sounds like a good law to me OP!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...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]

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.

 

[Concerned American]

pokygraph?

partisanly?

weopanized?

Do you speak English?

Is your daughter still in the calvary, Tory? How's that glass house holding up?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Lol, you ain't getting your own money back unless you live to be 110. How about a law that says SS money can only be used for SS?

You want that money just to sit until it can be doled out?

 

[evenflow1969]

You want that money just to sit until it can be doled out?

I wanna not have to live to be 110 just to get back what I put in. It can sit in an interest bearing account till doled out but not used for anything other than paying out SS or gaining interest.

 

[easyt65]

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?




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.

 

[j-mac]

How about we just get back to what is called for in the Constitution?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That would sunset Social Security. No?

No, not if they vote to keep it going

 

[Concerned American]

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?




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.

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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Not just looked at. Voted on to continue or they cease existing.

 

[ThisIsMe]

“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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Concerned American]

Not just looked at. Voted on to continue or they cease existing.

You know, like they do with the debt ceiling that the democrats want to do away with.