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

[Procrustes Stretched]

The federalist papers are crap....the most over-hyped crap we have...

werent widely read then..and made no difference

no one should pay attention to them now

Matchbook Law School?

 

[eagle1462010]

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

The federalist papers are crap....the most over-hyped crap we have...

werent widely read then..and made no difference

no one should pay attention to them now

That is a matter of opinion............We disagree..........

So, now what..........another mud throwing contest over the Federalist papers and the meaning of the Constitution.

You do know that the current POTUS has many quotes on the same subject...............Now don't you.

 

[dcraelin]

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

The federalist papers are crap....the most over-hyped crap we have...

werent widely read then..and made no difference

no one should pay attention to them now

That is a matter of opinion............We disagree..........

So, now what..........another mud throwing contest over the Federalist papers and the meaning of the Constitution.

You do know that the current POTUS has many quotes on the same subject...............Now don't you.

I thought I saw that Obama and shill Ted CRuz both were editors of the same law review.

I havent seen the presidents quotes on the federalist. its to bad if he gives it much importance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.

So, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

The federalist papers are crap....the most over-hyped crap we have...

werent widely read then..and made no difference

no one should pay attention to them now

That is a matter of opinion............We disagree..........

So, now what..........another mud throwing contest over the Federalist papers and the meaning of the Constitution.

You do know that the current POTUS has many quotes on the same subject...............Now don't you.

I thought I saw that Obama and shill Ted CRuz both were editors of the same law review.

I havent seen the presidents quotes on the federalist. its to bad if he takes it seriously.
but thats the shit they teach in law schools now....sad.

Ted Cruz in spite of his flaws is an extremely intelligent character and in many ways so is Obama. Once you come out of the fog in your mind you'll see the reality

 

[dcraelin]

We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused

I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.

My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.

It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.

The federalist papers are crap....the most over-hyped crap we have...

werent widely read then..and made no difference

no one should pay attention to them now

That is a matter of opinion............We disagree..........

So, now what..........another mud throwing contest over the Federalist papers and the meaning of the Constitution.

You do know that the current POTUS has many quotes on the same subject...............Now don't you.

I thought I saw that Obama and shill Ted CRuz both were editors of the same law review.

I havent seen the presidents quotes on the federalist. its to bad if he takes it seriously.
but thats the shit they teach in law schools now....sad.

Ted Cruz in spite of his flaws is an extremely intelligent character and in many ways so is Obama. Once you come out of the fog in your mind you'll see the reality

lol

 

[RKMBrown]

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

America used to be a constitutional government. Now it's a quasi facist socialist democracy.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

America used to be a constitutional government. Now it's a quasi facist socialist democracy.

Which is why we need to restore the Republic with the founding principles of this country.

I agree with your post.

 

[Wobbly]

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

I think this is my favorite example of pretentiousness of all the political cliches. We are, of course, a form of democracy - a constitutional and representative democacy. There are many kinds of democracy and republics, including definitions that allow for North Korea to legitimately claim it is a democracy and a republic. I am more interested in what provokes this statement. Only thing I can figure is a "conservative" dislike of democracy. They seem to prefer a strong daddy figure as the government - a "decider" like an incurious George or a shirtless Putin. Something to ease their fear of ... damn near everything.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

I think this is my favorite example of pretentiousness of all the political cliches. We are, of course, a form of democracy - a constitutional and representative democacy. There are many kinds of democracy and republics, including definitions that allow for North Korea to legitimately claim it is a democracy and a republic. I am more interested in what provokes this statement. Only thing I can figure is a "conservative" dislike of democracy. They seem to prefer a strong daddy figure as the government - a "decider" like an incurious George or a shirtless Putin. Something to ease their fear of ... damn near everything.

Misrepresents our views as I certainly have no problem electing my reps.................It's about limiting the Gov't and not allowing the Gov't to get to big for it's britches.............

Oops..........too late.

 

[Wobbly]

Misrepresents our views as I certainly have no problem electing my reps.................It's about limiting the Gov't and not allowing the Gov't to get to big for it's britches.............

Oops..........too late.

It represents exactly the views of the post it quoted. As for the righty cliche about a limited government ...

A conservative wakes in the morning and uses electricity from a gov't dam to blow dry his comb over. He eats breakfast confident that gov't inspectors have ensured it won't kill him. He gets in a car made safer and more fuel efficient by "big government," before driving on a free gov't road to work where his company is making money from a government contract. He drives home to a suburb where government police keep "those people" out. Before bed, he uses his Rogaine and takes his Cialis confident the FDA has made sure they will not grow hair on his palms or make his head harder.

At some point he will get on an internet developed first by the government and play John Wayne Hondo and complain about soshalizm and how everybody else is getting stuff from the government.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

America used to be a constitutional government. Now it's a quasi facist socialist democracy.

Which is why we need to restore the Republic with the founding principles of this country.

I agree with your post.

I'm with ya. Let's storm the castle walls and take it back.

 

[RKMBrown]

Misrepresents our views as I certainly have no problem electing my reps.................It's about limiting the Gov't and not allowing the Gov't to get to big for it's britches.............

Oops..........too late.

It represents exactly the views of the post it quoted. As for the righty cliche about a limited government ...

A conservative wakes in the morning and uses electricity from a gov't dam to blow dry his comb over. He eats breakfast confident that gov't inspectors have ensured it won't kill him. He gets in a car made safer and more fuel efficient by "big government," before driving on a free gov't road to work where his company is making money from a government contract. He drives home to a suburb where government police keep "those people" out. Before bed, he uses his Rogaine and takes his Cialis confident the FDA has made sure they will not grow hair on his palms or make his head harder.

At some point he will get on an internet developed first by the government and play John Wayne Hondo and complain about soshalizm and how everybody else is getting stuff from the government.

Typical POS marxist ass hole, that does not know the difference between forced redistribution of income and police, fire, national defense, and local roads built with local tax dollars.

 

[Wobbly]

Typical POS marxist ass hole, that does not know the difference between forced redistribution of income and police, fire, national defense, and local roads built with local tax dollars.

Getting past the rightard fixation on scatology, the biggest redistribution of income and wealth over the last few decades has been from the bottom up. Oh, and I do understand roads are not much built with local tax dollars; they are built mostly by federal gas taxes. But, I get the point. So long as the Koch brothers can keep you supplied with scapegoats to blame for inadequacies, they will never run out of lickspittle lackeys.

Oh, and don't worry about the need to have an over-compensating, macho avatar. That kind of justifiable insecurity is common in your herd.

 

[Skylar]

It is a rather amusing irony that the greater the wealth disparity and concentration of our nation's wealth with the top 1%, the more the right laments about wealth redistribution.

 

[Wobbly]

I'm with ya. Let's storm the castle walls and take it back.

One can but imagine how the government trembles at the prospect of a bunch of wheezing, beer-bellied geezers more likely to shoot each other than one of their boogey men storming its "walls."

 

[RKMBrown]

Typical POS marxist ass hole, that does not know the difference between forced redistribution of income and police, fire, national defense, and local roads built with local tax dollars.

Getting past the rightard fixation on scatology, the biggest redistribution of income and wealth over the last few decades has been from the bottom up. Oh, and I do understand roads are not much built with local tax dollars; they are built mostly by federal gas taxes. But, I get the point. So long as the Koch brothers can keep you supplied with scapegoats to blame for inadequacies, they will never run out of lickspittle lackeys.

Oh, and don't worry about the need to have an over-compensating, macho avatar. That kind of justifiable insecurity is common in your herd.

You don't like John Wayne? Fuck you.

 

[Wobbly]

You don't like John Wayne? Fuck you.

He's okay, in spite of his politics. It's wannabes who don't impress me much.

 

[Wobbly]

The last time I saw a TBagger militia in action, they were trashing police in support of a bigot who had defiantly stolen from the public for decades. They boasted of their strategy to use women and children as human shields.

 

[Londoner]

The Constitution does not mention the word Christianity once. Freedom of religion stipulates the non-discrimination of ALL religions and ANY beliefs provided they don't legally harm others. This means that the Muslim religion enjoys the same Constitutional protection as the Christian religion.

Point is: most Republicans don't understand this because they get their education from the pundit class, which distorts the Constitution on behalf of a political agenda.

Turn of Mark Levine and take your mind back.

 

[Wobbly]

Turn of Mark Levine and take your mind back.

I was shocked to see how so many of the leading, rightard-media airheads describe hysterical ranter Levin as an intellectual pillar of rightardism. Or, I was until I considered that compared to Hannity, he may be