• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

KJUN, I'll list your sources of why the United States is NOT a Democracy and that it IS instead a Republic. The fact that we HAVE a Constitution proves that the United States of America is a republic.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy versus repubblic.htm
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.democrats.com/node/807
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259556/posts

I'll bet that every US citizen has said this oath:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
That doesn't prove my original point wrong: The US implementation of a Constitutional Republic is a representative democracy.
 
KJUN said:
I KNOW how much y'all would miss me if this PC fried......lol.
.
Click to expand...

I'd be bummed. I like most debates with you, you just aren't doing your best today, and I have a habit of acting the mirror when I think someone's being a bully. :twohammer

When you say you're fighting for our (my) rights, I believe you. I think I'm doing the same, I just don't see the same threats as you. One of us is more right than the other. Just because I think it's me, don't mean I should talk down to you. I apologize for that.
I hope when the storm passes, you'll come back and make your point!
 
Susan said:
KJUN, I'll list your sources of why the United States is NOT a Democracy and that it IS instead a Republic. The fact that we HAVE a Constitution proves that the United States of America is a republic.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy versus repubblic.htm
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.democrats.com/node/807
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259556/posts

I'll bet that every US citizen has said this oath:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Click to expand...

The point isn't that we're not a Republic, nobody's said that, just that they aren't mutually exclusive. Our founding fathers (even the MOST 'republican' of them) clearly named themselves to show their preference for a mixture.

In other words, if I can show you a definition of Republic that our government does not resemble ours does that mean we aren't a Republic? Certainly not.
 
Last edited:
Also, those sources have a kind of bent to them.

Canada has limitations on the power of the majority as well, but Canada has implemented what's called a "Parliamentary Democracy". It's another form of representative democracy. Just because the power of the majority is given limits does not suddenly mean that the system of government is not a democracy.

When the US puts regulations on business does that suddenly mean the US is no longer capitalist?
 
It's all semantics anyway. The Soviet Socialist Republic, the Weimar Republic, the People's Republic of China. These are all republics as well. Very different from each other and very different from our own country. If people are more comfortable with the word Republic or the word Democracy, as opposed to a more in depth discussion of how much power the government and the people have than you can say it how you like.

If we look past the semantics, can anyone really argue with this quote? I'll change the offending D-word (but I don't see the offense) to FORM OF GOVERNMENT..

Nova_C said:
The United States is officially a Republic, which in this case is defined as a representative FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Ultimate authority still rests with the people, which means ultimate responsibility lies with the people.
Click to expand...
 
A part of the problem in exactly defining the current US government is that it is no longer what our founding fathers originally wanted. Somewhere along the line, the federal branch got hold of more power that it should have. Specifically Congress. If the individual state legislature ever get back to being able to appoint the Senators instead of them being elected by the people, maybe we will start getting some of that power back where it belongs...with the states.
 
Susan said:
A part of the problem in exactly defining the current US government is that it is no longer what our founding fathers originally wanted. Somewhere along the line, the federal branch got hold of more power that it should have. Specifically Congress. If the individual state legislature ever get back to being able to appoint the Senators instead of them being elected by the people, maybe we will start getting some of that power back where it belongs...with the states.
Click to expand...

What kind of government did they want for us in these times? Who can say that? They made a Constitution that can be legally changed, the only thing I will speak for them on, is to say that they surely did not do so on accident. We can each quote mine them for support on our sides, but that is only in the context of a world that is vastly changed.
 
Additionally, IIRC, suffrage was based on a meritocracy during the early days of our government, i.e., you had to be a male white landowner to vote.

I can think of about 50% of the electorate who don't want to regress to those days.


Dale
 
Nor was there a perfect consensus among our founding fathers themselves as to how much power the Federal government should have. That's an argument as old as the nation itself.
 
Austin M said:
Bob robbed 100k in 8 years. Tom robbed 100k in 4 months. Bob is innocent because he was sneakier and took longer, and Tom is guilty because cause he isn't waiting 8 years for 100k! That's my argument too. Everyone leave Bob alone!
Click to expand...
Yeah? Well Tom robbed 100K in 4 months, which leaves him another 92 months to do some more robbin'. That means if he's that good, he can rob 2300 K. Good for him.

D80
 
Drizzt80 said:
Yeah? Well Tom robbed 100K in 4 months, which leaves him another 92 months to do some more robbin'. That means if he's that good, he can rob 2300 K. Good for him.

D80
Click to expand...

Oh man now that just takes the cake. Now I'm a bank robber? :laugh: JK
 
HUH?

RNC showdown over 'socialist' resolution may be avoided
Posted: 07:56 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

OXON HILL, Maryland (CNN) — Members of the Republican National Committee appear to have reached a compromise that would let GOP leaders avoid a possible dispute over a controversial resolution that calls on Democrats to re-name their party the "Democrat Socialist party."

Steele has come out against the resolution, calling it "not an appropriate way to express our views on the issues of the day." One of Steele's allies on the committee, Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer, told CNN the resolution is "stupid" and "ridiculous."

However, New Jersey committeeman David Norcross, one of the sponsors of the resolution, told CNN the language is being massaged so that Steele and others on the committee will be more receptive.

"The language is being changed so that the proposers and chairman Steele are on the same page," Norcross said.

He said that as of Tuesday afternoon, the chairman of the RNC Standing Committee on Resolutions had changed the language to "condemn the Democrats' march to socialism" instead of "talking about the 'Democrat Socialist' party."

The change was made, Norcross said, so that members "wouldn't have to fight about it, and I think everybody agreed."

Read the rest of this entry »
Click to expand...
disclaimer* I did not actually write, or publish this article myself, so please don't hold me personally accountable for everything contained within it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...cialist-resolution-may-be-avoided/#more-52396
 
WOOOT WOOOT WOOOT

The worst president in the history of this country is on his way out and his third term hillary will NOT be living at 1600 Pennsylvania.

There may still be hope for this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top