Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are projecting the trash truck on yourself again. You and your fellow wacks are allowed to say what you think, but you don't have the votes. You know it, I know it.
You're confusing a Democracy with freedom of speech.
In a Democracy the minority has no voice.
That's what's wrong with a Democracy. It sounds good but people get fucked all of the time.
Say we have a country that is mostly Shiite. The Sunnis are in the minority and have no voice. In Iraq the Sunnis were the minority but since the President was Sunni they had more of a voice then the Shiite majority. Now the tables have turned and they have a Democracy. It didn't solve their problems because we wanted them to develop a constitution and they still don't have one. That is why they are going nowhere.
No, no, no. Democracies can become tyrannies of the majority if the country does not have guaranteed minority rights. We do, they don't, and you don't get it.
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: 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.
A Republic
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 Individuals 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.
You're confusing a Democracy with freedom of speech.
In a Democracy the minority has no voice.
That's what's wrong with a Democracy. It sounds good but people get fucked all of the time.
Say we have a country that is mostly Shiite. The Sunnis are in the minority and have no voice. In Iraq the Sunnis were the minority but since the President was Sunni they had more of a voice then the Shiite majority. Now the tables have turned and they have a Democracy. It didn't solve their problems because we wanted them to develop a constitution and they still don't have one. That is why they are going nowhere.
No, no, no. Democracies can become tyrannies of the majority if the country does not have guaranteed minority rights. We do, they don't, and you don't get it.
A constitution makes all of the difference. A Democracy doesn't have basic human rights because the majority gets to decide everything.
YOU didn't read my POST.
Since you didn't you look like a fool and this discussion is a total waste of time.
It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who refuses to fact up to the truth.
But I'll try to post it in larger print so you can read it like a 9 year old.
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: 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.
A Republic
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 Individuals 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.
You're delusional. Seek help.Let's face it. They hate us. No election in any Middle Eastern country is going to put in place a government that is friendly to our country or our primary ally, Israel.
It also doesn't help that Obama has been actively running this revolution from the White House. They don't want to give the impression this is an American operation but it's getting harder and harder to hide the fact. Guess it just depends on what people are willing to believe.
What's the difference between the kind of government takeover and regime-building Bush did in Iraq and Obama is doing in Egypt?
Why is Egypt of more strategic importance then Iraq is?
We've got some serious idiots currently running our government and we're powerless to stop them from screwing the pooch. What they're doing today will effect our lives for decades to come. It could mean the deaths of thousands of Israelis.
You are projecting the trash truck on yourself again. You and your fellow wacks are allowed to say what you think, but you don't have the votes. You know it, I know it.
You're delusional. Seek help.Let's face it. They hate us. No election in any Middle Eastern country is going to put in place a government that is friendly to our country or our primary ally, Israel.
It also doesn't help that Obama has been actively running this revolution from the White House. They don't want to give the impression this is an American operation but it's getting harder and harder to hide the fact. Guess it just depends on what people are willing to believe.
What's the difference between the kind of government takeover and regime-building Bush did in Iraq and Obama is doing in Egypt?
Why is Egypt of more strategic importance then Iraq is?
We've got some serious idiots currently running our government and we're powerless to stop them from screwing the pooch. What they're doing today will effect our lives for decades to come. It could mean the deaths of thousands of Israelis.
'tis not a democracy yet. Another military takeover disguised as a popular revolt is what it looks like to me. We will have to wait and see if the military allows real democratic elections or if they will pick a candidate and then squash any other one. Real democracies allow the people to decide not an military junta.
And face it, Egypt gets a lot of money from us, and the military enjoys a cozy realtionship with the pentagon so do you really see a change? No.
Does it really matter what we call it?
Our government is what it is.
Once again semantical arguments lead nowhere.
None of the anti-Egtypian pro-Mubark supporters have demonstrated that this revolution will not aid the U.S.
With almost four hundred years of history as a caliphate, its not surprising then that Egypts penal code is written and based upon Islamic law. Perhaps this is to be expected in a country where an estimated 90% of the people are Muslim. What is surprising is that Egypts government is, or at least has been, a secular model. But will it remain so?
None of the anti-Egtypian pro-Mubark supporters have demonstrated that this revolution will not aid the U.S.
None of the anti-Egtypian pro-Mubark supporters have demonstrated that this revolution will not aid the U.S.
I guess while they were bashing in Gregg Palkot, and Anderson Cooper's heads they were really showing their love for America.
You're delusional. Seek help.Let's face it. They hate us. No election in any Middle Eastern country is going to put in place a government that is friendly to our country or our primary ally, Israel.
It also doesn't help that Obama has been actively running this revolution from the White House. They don't want to give the impression this is an American operation but it's getting harder and harder to hide the fact. Guess it just depends on what people are willing to believe.
What's the difference between the kind of government takeover and regime-building Bush did in Iraq and Obama is doing in Egypt?
Why is Egypt of more strategic importance then Iraq is?
We've got some serious idiots currently running our government and we're powerless to stop them from screwing the pooch. What they're doing today will effect our lives for decades to come. It could mean the deaths of thousands of Israelis.
I suggest you seek help crawling out from under that rock you're living under Patrick.
You're delusional if you think anything else is the case.
Democracy, the kind of democracy that Islamic radicals are thinking of, squashes the rights of the minority. Steps all over them. 65% of Egyptians already are willing to put anyone in power that will end the peace between Egypt and Israel. It was the same in Gaza. They voted in terrorists because the terrorists build hospitals. It didn't matter that they also had their kids blowing themselves up in buses in Tel Aviv.
Let's face it. They hate us. No election in any Middle Eastern country is going to put in place a government that is friendly to our country or our primary ally, Israel.
It also doesn't help that Obama has been actively running this revolution from the White House. They don't want to give the impression this is an American operation but it's getting harder and harder to hide the fact. Guess it just depends on what people are willing to believe.
What's the difference between the kind of government takeover and regime-building Bush did in Iraq and Obama is doing in Egypt?
Why is Egypt of more strategic importance then Iraq is?
We've got some serious idiots currently running our government and we're powerless to stop them from screwing the pooch. What they're doing today will effect our lives for decades to come. It could mean the deaths of thousands of Israelis.
'tis not a democracy yet. Another military takeover disguised as a popular revolt is what it looks like to me. We will have to wait and see if the military allows real democratic elections or if they will pick a candidate and then squash any other one. Real democracies allow the people to decide not an military junta.
And face it, Egypt gets a lot of money from us, and the military enjoys a cozy realtionship with the pentagon so do you really see a change? No.
We propped up Iran while the Shaw was in power,gave them millions, and Iran fell into the hands of Kolmeni and a radical theocracy that has been in power for over 30 years. And guess what, many Americans would be alive today if it weren't for Iran turning radical on Carter's watch.
If it weren't for Iran, Somalis wouldn't have been able to shoot down our Black Hawks.
If it weren't for Iran, Iraq would have been peaceful inside a year.
If it weren't for Iran 4000 of our kids wouldn't have died in Iraq.
All of those thousands of dead Iraqis many blame Bush for would be alive today.
And FYI, if it weren't for Iran, Hezbollah wouldn't even exist.
I question YOU!!!Mubarak blamed it on Obama.
Did you even know up until 20 days ago that Egypt was such a mess??? Did you know who the Muslim Brotherhood was before then???
Aren't you uncomfortable with our president being so friendly with the Muslim Brotherhood??? Isn't it a problem to you that Obama has taken such an active role in the Egyptian revolution?????
Don't you question anything??????
