America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not the size of government that decides whether it's RW or LW, it's the economy..

too 100% stupid as always. Republicans sign the pledge to keep govt small and Democrats dont to keep govt big. Ever think of college??

 

[dcraelin]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

liberals like mob rule because the mob is liberal. Liberalism was created to capitalize on the ignorance of the mob. Liberals promise welfare entitlements and the ignorant mob votes for them. It is nothing less than subversion of our Republic.

check out my picture gallery to see that your wrongon the supposed differences between republic and democracy.....

and local republican politicians such as the dunces in cobb country geogia who subsidized a baseball stadium are the kind of people u should worry about...nor some poor slob getting a welfare check.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

Baloney. What election did they have in Libya? That's anarchy...Representational democracy is the definition of republic, hater dupes.

When was Hitler's plebiscite? I can tell you now he was aleadt in total control. He never won a majority in a free election. He was APPOINTED CHANCELLOR by Hindenburg and others who thought he could be controlled. Big mistake. They believed his propaganda, like Pub dupes today believe he was a socialist. Idiocy.

What are you talking about? Pay attention. No Arab Spring brought about true representative democracy. The Arab Spring brought about anarchy. You reap what you sow. The framers of America's constitution studied up on what they wanted.

Try reading up on it: Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled Popular democracy. They held a vote. 10% voted no. Brave people. 90% wanted a dictator. There's your 50 plus 1

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

free trade is perhaps the one thing all economists agree upon. The freer trade is the richer you get, the less free trade is the poorer you get. Can you ask your mom to explain further?

Do you understand? Would you rather have the mob decide or use common sense?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ask the people directly I think on most issues..

dear, they tried that and many voted for Hitler in 1933.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

liberals like mob rule because the mob is liberal. Liberalism was created to capitalize on the ignorance of the mob. Liberals promise welfare entitlements and the ignorant mob votes for them. It is nothing less than subversion of our Republic.

check out my picture gallery to see that your wrongon the supposed differences between republic and democracy.....

and local republican politicians such as the dunces in cobb country geogia who subsidized a baseball stadium are the kind of people u should worry about...nor some poor slob getting a welfare check.

I should worry about all expenditures when the final result is a debt that can't be paid.

The fat lady will eventually sing if we continue to live beyond our means. All unnecessary spending should be ended and that doesn't mean someone like me is going to starve the people and throw them out in the streets. That is propaganda machine used by the left over and over again.

We shouldn't be sudsidizing PRIVATE BUSINESS PERIOD. That is on them, and they shouldn't get bank rolled by the Tax payer.

To the welfare class. One of my biggest complaints is taxes...............It's one thing for them to pay 0 in Federal Taxes, but another thing when they get 5 to 7k in refunds each year when they paid nothing in after it is said and done.

That alone would save this country over 200 Billion a year in costs.

Eventually, the way we are going will completely destroy the value of the dollar, and kill our standard of living.

 

[francoHFW]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

 

[eagle1462010]

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

I never said that the Federal Government is a collection of state legislators...........I said that under OUR REPUBLIC the Senate was THEIR VOICE................the HOUSE was created as the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

It's OWN ENTITY..................They are hired to do a dang job...............They are EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE............and should be fired when they do a shitty job..............That's not an ENTITY on to itself............The District of Columbia is no mans land for a reason. It is occupied by a bunch of used car salesmen.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 17th removed the State Legislatures voice..............as it was intended under the Founding principles of the Constitution. Legislatures of states know more about the effects of National laws. They know because National Laws have direct effects on all states in order to comply with the law.

The average Joe of the State doesn't know the details or EFFECTS of these new laws which is why the Senators were selected by the State Gov'ts.................and it's a hell of a lot harder to buy off a whole State Legislature than 2 Senators................

State Legislatures need to focus on state issues.

"The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826" - 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Direct Election of U.S. Senators So who in 1826 was recommending this?

I guess Harry Reid should be a hero to your ilk:

"During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators. Each time, however, the Senate refused to even take a vote."

 

[dcraelin]

to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

free trade is perhaps the one thing all economists agree upon. The freer trade is the richer you get, the less free trade is the poorer you get. Can you ask your mom to explain further?

Do you understand? Would you rather have the mob decide or use common sense?

right to the sameraass huh...sign youve already lost....I put freee trade in quotes because it isnt free trade..its managed trade to the benefit of donors, lobbyists etc.....but the econonmist arent neccessarily right either, Ive read ravi batras book a one time free trade econonist who now says he was wrong....most americans instintively get that these "feree trade" agreement are sell-outs.....they are right

 

[dcraelin]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.
Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

 

[eagle1462010]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

Oh shut the hell up. Under the equation of the OP..............it is basically a pure democracy versus a Republic.

And we don't need no stinking pure democracy. Voting is part of both systems lib. and the real deal now is do you want a pure, direct democracy RIGHT NOW.............I don't think so............Because that would make the GOP the MOB............You will OBEY US LIB..................That is the difference and that is the tryranny of a temporary Super Majority in a Republic.

That is why there is Obamacare.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy.

no dear, its far more accurate to say we're a constitutional democracy. This means we have the extreme wisdom of our founders to limit the power of the people and the govt. You see now, they knew central power had been the source of evil in human history. You still don't know it even after seeing your great liberal friends Hitler Stalin and Mao. Ever think of college?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

(1st) our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. (2nd) We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

First part true. Second part - nuts! We have more democracy because that's what the people wanted. It's how a democratic republic works. We may agree or not on how much democracy is desirable, but we should not disagree that the people have a right to get what they want. The framers gave the people the amendment process.

case closed

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.
Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

Jefferson was thin-skinned. He was chided and made fun out of by friends and mocked by others for his childish beliefs -- myths, which he refused to walk away from. Jefferson believed there existed in pre Magna Cart England, a utopian Saxon ideal of liberty "self governing Saxon Boroughs" - (Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities- page 37). This is mentioned in many bios of the thin-skinned, little effeminate Tommie

I kind of doubt the author knows what hes talking about...ive read lot of stuff on jefferson...never read that....anyway i dont know how they were governed, do you? iceland had an early parliment type government as I understand.

I really dont care how effeminate you say he was you seem to be fixated on that

Jefferson's fantasy world is well documented. The author you question -- I'd take his research over yours any day. LOL I told you, I've read it in more than one account of Jefferson's life.

Jefferson's main idiocy was that Saxons lost a mythic liberty they never had

Effeminate in ways that are unflattering caricatures of weak men -- men afraid to battle in the open, men who would use surrogates and proxies, men who detested conflict yet fed it

Typical ignorant hater dupe. Gets one obscure talking point about a complex man and thinks he knows everything...

Far more than one talking point as you try to marginalize it. Dante doesn't quite know everything yet, but unlike you he keeps reading and learning.

How does it feel to constantly be stuck on stupid? Comforting in ignorant bliss?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That is why there is Obamacare.

dear there is Obamacare because liberals lack the IQ to know capitalism would reduce prices 80% and add 10--20 years to our life spans.

 

[dcraelin]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

I agree with almost this whole post but republic does not equal representative democracy....it is really just the latin term for democracy...Republics thru ages ahve had direct citizen lawmaking.

google up the Cato report "there is room for direct democracy in a republic"