Democracy in America

[GostHacked]

If we really had a democracy, in Canada or the US, we would have been able to vote on the war on terror. We would have been able to vote as a population weather to go into Afghanistan/Iraq or not.

The leaders of the country make those decisions for us. The reason they keep on doing it is for the fact they do not tell us everything of what they want to accomplish. I doubt we would have gone to war if it was left up to the people to decide on major isssues like that. The population is informed of the actions but never involved in the process to reach that ultimate decision.

We would be able to vote for a new healthcare system or keep the old one. We would have major votes on major issues that matter and affect the whole country. But we are mostly kept in the dark about this war on terror and it's ultimate goals. We had no vote or say in this war on terror. WE HAD NO VOTE OR CHOICE ABOUT THIS WAR ON TERROR.

So no, I do not beleive anyone here lives in a democracy. We have a representative dictatorship.

Olbermann delivers again with

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/o...w-dare-you-sir/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/24/b...-surge-mandate/

“Look, I know most of you disagree with my judgment, but I’ve decided that my policy is the only way to go. Americans showed they prefer a change when the voted for Democrats last November, but I’m still the president. As long as I’m in office, I’m not going to change course. Period.”

Presidents should not make statements like

This wouild be easier if it was a dictatorship. Just as long as I am the dictator.

GWB

Any leader who makes jokes about being a dictator needs to be removed. The man screws up time and time again. The whole Bush Administration is now in panic damage control mode now. Many in the Bush admin are now being investigates for pretty shady stuff.

[ScottSA]

I'm not misreading anything. Read the last link I posted above. Read Pat Buchanan's, A Republic Not A Democracy.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Article 4 section 4 of the constitution.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,127 and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

127 "In the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms," says Cooley ("Principles of Constitutional Law"), "there could be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people's representatives make the laws and their agents administer them, but the people would also directly or indirectly choose the executive."

I think there is some confusion here as to what who is saying. Remember that these people had no points of reference, and "democracy" simply meant "rule by the demos". To many minds of the day, 'democracy' was no different in effect from mob rule, or alternatively 'tyranny of the majority', as Mills would have it. But that doesn't mean that Rebuplicanism is NOT democracy, because it is. Communism, for instance, is a form of totalitarianism, just as republicanism is a form of democracy. Just because one can say the USSR is totalitarian doesn't mean one is claiming it's not communist. Both can be true simultaneously. Some people, like our resident conspiracy theorist and his fellow plotsniffers, like to twist the meaning of words so they seem to say things not meant. Buchanan on the other hand, is simply pointing out the distinction between mob rule and republicanisn. If he goes any further than this, he is off base. Listen to what Cooley is actually saying:

"republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people's representatives make the laws and their agents administer them, but the people would also directly or indirectly choose the executive"

He is talking about republican democracy. He is not talking about some form of 'archy' in which the people are ignored or ruled according to some Platonic form of 'order' or direction from above, he is describing representative democracy, which is still democracy under any but the most stringent purist definition.

[B. Max]

='M.Dancer' date='Apr 26 2007, 12:33 PM' post='212572']

Suffice to say that democracy is self evident oin the US. I agree that the framers (who Mencken is not) did bot envision a wide reaching democracy as the US enjoys now. They did not envison people who did not own property voting. They did not envision non whites voting. They did not envision women voting.

They didn't envision any of that yet now all those people can vote in the republic, ergo, the republic is democratic.

So the US was a republic and now it is not. Is that your contention, and what you posted above is why it is not a republic and therefore defines a democracy. In this country at one time women couldn't vote, or if you didn't own property you couldn't vote. Does that mean we used to be a republic.

Now perhaps you would like to grace us with your definition of democracy and show why the US isn't one.....

The US is a republic, that is a fact. It doesn't have a monarchy as head of state. There are many in this country who want to dump the Queen and become a republic. Where the president is directly elected by the voter.

[M.Dancer]

So the US was a republic and now it is not. Is that your contention, and what you posted above is why it is not a republic and therefore defines a democracy. In this country at one time women couldn't vote, or if you didn't own property you couldn't vote. Does that mean we used to be a republic.

No the US is still a republic and it is still a democracy. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

The US is a republic, that is a fact. It doesn't have a monarchy as head of state. There are many in this country who want to dump the Queen and become a republic. Where the president is directly elected by the voter.

That isn't a definition of democracy, nor is simply not having a queen a definition of a republic. France is a reblic too, but their republican system is different from America's and yet, it is still a democracy.

You should really be clear on the definitions as a starting point.

What is a democracy?

[B. Max]

That isn't a definition of democracy, nor is simply not having a queen a definition of a republic. France is a reblic too, but their republican system is different from America's and yet, it is still a democracy.

Actually not having a monarchy is the main definition of being a republic and not democracy. France and others are republics. Because republics have differences is not what defines them as a republic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any leader who makes jokes about being a dictator needs to be removed. The man screws up time and time again. The whole Bush Administration is now in panic damage control mode now. Many in the Bush admin are now being investigates for pretty shady stuff.

Really? If that is your benchmark then nearly every prior administration should also have faced "removal". Fortunately, the US Constitution will always prevail over your opinion. That's how it is in a constitutional republic.

Save willy nilly confidence votes and fallen governments for Canada.

[M.Dancer]

That isn't a definition of democracy, nor is simply not having a queen a definition of a republic. France is a reblic too, but their republican system is different from America's and yet, it is still a democracy.

Actually not having a monarchy is the main definition of being a republic and not democracy. France and others are republics. Because republics have differences is not what defines them as a republic.

You seem to be having difficulty with defining democracy

[PolyNewbie]

France and others are republics. Because republics have differences is not what defines them as a republic.

All the European countries are owned by the same people that own the USA & Canada. People who really run things are the people that print the money. I wonder what is so hard for people to understand about this.

[ScottSA]

France and others are republics. Because republics have differences is not what defines them as a republic.

All the European countries are owned by the same people that own the USA & Canada. People who really run things are the people that print the money. I wonder what is so hard for people to understand about this.

I think it's Martian infiltrators. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand.

[B. Max]

You seem to be having difficulty with defining democracy

I just told you what the difference is. What my version is doesn't matter nor is it the subject. Everyone these days has their version of democracy. You seem to have a problem answering questions.

[M.Dancer]

You seem to be having difficulty with defining democracy

I just told you what the difference is. What my version is doesn't matter nor is it the subject. Everyone these days has their version of democracy. You seem to have a problem answering questions.

Let me make it simple for you.

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

[M.Dancer]

In othwer words you will have to explain why a nation that has universal suffrage doesn't fit the bill of a democracy.

[B. Max]

Let me make it simple for you.

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

No I don't. I have told you what the main difference is. What don't you understand. Now answer the questions.

[B. Max]

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

You define it.

[M.Dancer]

Let me make it simple for you.

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

No I don't.

I don't think the guy knows what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

Ummm...yes you do.

[B. Max]

what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

Ummm...yes you do.

No I've had enough of your nonsense. Not only are you wasting your time but my also.

[M.Dancer]

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

You define it.

Rule of the people, a system of selecting a government based of suffrage. The Democratic state takes many forms from the most extremes like direct democracy or anarchistic democracy (no party states to socialist democracy (one party states). The most common form of democracy in the west is representative which include Canada and the US.

[M.Dancer]

Let me make it simple for you.

Define+Democracy.

If you say that because America is a republic it isn't a democracy, you must define democracy.

No I don't.

what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

Ummm...yes you do.

No I've had enough of your nonsense. Not only are you wasting your time but my also.

Don't get angry at me if you can't make sense or keep your story straight.

[GostHacked]

Any leader who makes jokes about being a dictator needs to be removed. The man screws up time and time again. The whole Bush Administration is now in panic damage control mode now. Many in the Bush admin are now being investigates for pretty shady stuff.

Really? If that is your benchmark then nearly every prior administration should also have faced "removal". Fortunately, the US Constitution will always prevail over your opinion. That's how it is in a constitutional republic.

Save willy nilly confidence votes and fallen governments for Canada.

I do not have much confidence in my Canadian government either. Harper and Co, look more and more like the previous dimwits we had as Prime Minister. The last Prime Minister I have any amount of respect for is Pierre Trudeau. I used to respect Layton as the NDP leader, but now I see what he is about and cannot support him or that party anymore. Politicians are all the freakin same these days. And they use that to their advantage. You think you have a choice?? Sure pick Incompitent Leader A, or Incompitent Leader B.

Being in that kind of position you would want to set an example for the people and BE that example for the people. GWB has shown us time and time again he is a bumbling fool/idiot/liar ect ect. Being a President/Prime Minister (or any 'democraticly' elected leader) has responsibilities, and many of them. One is to present to the people a strong, smart, intelligent,articulate leader. GWB posseses none of these fine qualities.

Remember this election in 2008 has the potential of being the Billion Dollar Presidential Campaign. Money has influence, Money can buy you the position, but cannot buy you respect from the people. That has to be earned. Bush has thrown away everything for his war agenda. "I am a war president." GWB has said before. So expect war, and lots of it. Not to mention the war would be easier to execute if he was the Dictator.

Clinton screwed up by lying about the Intern affair. It would have been best if he had not done it in the first place. So because of that, it shows to me that Clinton only seems to posess some of the qualities of a great leader. And only possessing some of the qualities means that they are always going to be a half assed leader.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Being in that kind of position you would want to set an example for the people and BE that example for the people. GWB has shown us time and time again he is a bumbling fool/idiot/liar ect ect. Being a President/Prime Minister (or any 'democraticly' elected leader) has responsibilities, and many of them. One is to present to the people a strong, smart, intelligent,articulate leader. GWB posseses none of these fine qualities.

Remember this election in 2008 has the potential of being the Billion Dollar Presidential Campaign. Money has influence, Money can buy you the position, but cannot buy you respect from the people. That has to be earned. Bush has thrown away everything for his war agenda. "I am a war president." GWB has said before. So expect war, and lots of it. Not to mention the war would be easier to execute if he was the Dictator...

Rant noted, but these leaders do not owe the "people" any such thing. Is "smart" different from "intelligent"? GWB is far more powerful than any dictator...he is the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and if war be his agenda, then there shall be war, as with many presidents before him.

A "billion dollar" election...I wouldn't have it any other way...it's so....ummm...AMERICAN.

[PolyNewbie]

GhostHacked:One is to present to the people a strong, smart, intelligent,articulate leader. GWB posseses none of these fine qualities.

To be a good president one must

(1) know how to follow implicit orders from the real powers

(2) Not have any cold sores (for kissing babies)

(3) Be able to look & sound important

If the qualifications were any more than that GWB as an ex alchoholic, druggie and party animal would not have got the job in the first place.

[GostHacked]

Rant noted, but these leaders do not owe the "people" any such thing. Is "smart" different from "intelligent"? GWB is far more powerful than any dictator...he is the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and if war be his agenda, then there shall be war, as with many presidents before him.

So the people in power owe nothing to the population it governs?? Does not sound like much of a democracy, now does it? Take my tax money but do not use it for what I would really like it to be used for. Is it the People's agenda? Administrations agenda? GWB is more powerfull than any dictator? Again, not sounding like a democracy here. The People never vote for war.

To be a good president one must

(1) know how to follow implicit orders from the real powers

(2) Not have any cold sores (for kissing babies)

(3) Be able to look & sound important

Well two out of 3 ain't bad. GWB does not do so well on your 3rd point.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the people in power owe nothing to the population it governs?? Does not sound like much of a democracy, now does it? Take my tax money but do not use it for what I would really like it to be used for. Is it the People's agenda? Administrations agenda? GWB is more powerfull than any dictator? Again, not sounding like a democracy here. The People never vote for war.

In the USA, the "people" do indeed vote for war through elected representatives and powers enumerated in the Constitution (see "consent of the governed"). It's not your "tax money" or "agenda" even if you convince like minded individuals to vote accordingly. You can have your chance, but only as a bill on Capital Hill subject to a gauntlet of other competing interests. Or you can have your day in court.

GWB is more powerful than any dictator expressly because the USA is a constitutional republic and democracy. Don't like his agenda?...just wait until the next one comes along with a different agenda.

Only one vote to a customer.....and then only if you are a US citizen.

[Guthrie]

"Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?" - HD Thoreau

"If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood". - HD Thoreau

[Catchme]

That said, the Buschistas represent the worst assault on our Democracy since the Civil War. They are criminals who have violated both federal statute and the very Constitution itself. They have to go.

Yes they do, particulariliy when you realize they meet all 10 of the criteria, though actually there is according to Chris Hedges 14 and that all 14 are met. But anyway the number is inconsequential.

But here are the 10 Naomi speaks of:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.

2. Create a gulag.

3. Develop a thug caste.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system.

5. Harass citizens' groups.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.

7. Target key individuals.

8. Control the press.

9. Dissent equals treason.

10. Suspend the rule of law.

Now Hedge's, in his book, "American Fascism" details the way, or manner, in which society is subverted into allowing fascist thought/actions to take hold of them. It is well worth the read, and it is startling in its expose.