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.
A Republic is small limited government, where the people are served rather than regulated, represented rather that ruled.
No. A republic is a representative government of some kind, in which governing officials are chosen by the votes of constituents. It may be large or it may be small, and the people may or may not be served. The Soviet Union was a republic, but it was also a big government in which the people had little voice.
A Democracy is a large government, with entitlements to the people and where the people and businesses are regulated.
No. A democracy is a government in which all citizens participate by majority vote, either directly (as in ancient Athens) or through representatives (as in the United States today).
Actually, your definitions have nothing to do with the usual and normal meanings of either word.
I thought you realized We are talking about America.
After all the thread was -is the U.S. a Democracy.
My definitions are about why America is a Republic and not a Democracy,as explained by our Founders words and was taught by our schools.
Is Jillian a Republican?
don't make me come over there and hurt you.
LOL!
Jillian is a closet member of the GOP?
Who'd'a thunked it?
don't make me come over there and hurt you.
LOL!
Jillian is a closet member of the GOP?
Who'd'a thunked it?
Is it twue that you are gonna try to take the GOP chairmanship from Reince Priebus?
No. A republic is a representative government of some kind, in which governing officials are chosen by the votes of constituents. It may be large or it may be small, and the people may or may not be served. The Soviet Union was a republic, but it was also a big government in which the people had little voice.
No. A democracy is a government in which all citizens participate by majority vote, either directly (as in ancient Athens) or through representatives (as in the United States today).
Actually, your definitions have nothing to do with the usual and normal meanings of either word.
I thought you realized We are talking about America.
After all the thread was -is the U.S. a Democracy.
My definitions are about why America is a Republic and not a Democracy,as explained by our Founders words and was taught by our schools.
and you'd be wrong about that, too. because what you're saying makes zero sense. the definitions that i gave apply to our form of government.
you just like the idea of applying false definitions that you think support your extremist rightwing views.
Is it twue that you are gonna try to take the GOP chairmanship from Reince Priebus?
if i took charge of the GOP you wouldn't like who i'd have run it.
I thought you realized We are talking about America.
After all the thread was -is the U.S. a Democracy.
My definitions are about why America is a Republic and not a Democracy,as explained by our Founders words and was taught by our schools.
and you'd be wrong about that, too. because what you're saying makes zero sense. the definitions that i gave apply to our form of government.
you just like the idea of applying false definitions that you think support your extremist rightwing views.
You are the one who has been taught false far left wing views.
I am a conservative Dem who recently left the party and went Independent.
I am not a right winger and what I posted is right from our Founding Fathers.
Jefferson's Letter to Isaac Tiffany 1816
Sir,-In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to ellis', the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those people, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of the second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.
Jefferson is talking about a Republic form of Government, not the political party.
Our Consitituion guarantee's us a Republican form of Government to every State in the Union Article IV. Sec. 4
Our founders letters and papers explained what type of Republican form of government they wanted us to have.
Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler
wrote this when the states were still colonies of Great Britain.
He explained why democracies fail
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Largess means liberal giving of money.
This is exactly why our founders did not want us to be a Democracy in any way shape or form.
This is what they meant in their papers when they wrote that democracies always fail.
Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler
wrote this when the states were still colonies of Great Britain.
He explained why democracies fail
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Largess means liberal giving of money.
This is exactly why our founders did not want us to be a Democracy in any way shape or form.
This is what they meant in their papers when they wrote that democracies always fail.
and you'd be wrong about that, too. because what you're saying makes zero sense. the definitions that i gave apply to our form of government.
you just like the idea of applying false definitions that you think support your extremist rightwing views.
You are the one who has been taught false far left wing views.
I am a conservative Dem who recently left the party and went Independent.
I am not a right winger and what I posted is right from our Founding Fathers.
Jefferson's Letter to Isaac Tiffany 1816
Sir,-In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation of the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation of being preferable to ellis', the only rival translation into English. I have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own knowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those people, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification can be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of the second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.
Jefferson is talking about a Republic form of Government, not the political party.
Our Consitituion guarantee's us a Republican form of Government to every State in the Union Article IV. Sec. 4
Our founders letters and papers explained what type of Republican form of government they wanted us to have.
The far right and the far left have their own version of reality and no one will ever change their minds....ever.
Is it twue that you are gonna try to take the GOP chairmanship from Reince Priebus?
if i took charge of the GOP you wouldn't like who i'd have run it.
Pfft. If the Republicans didn't care for your choices, they'd just toss you out.
if i took charge of the GOP you wouldn't like who i'd have run it.
Pfft. If the Republicans didn't care for your choices, they'd just toss you out.
i actually like michael steele now that he doesn't have to pretend the lunatics aren't lunatics.
That kind of idiot crazy talk.
Pfft. If the Republicans didn't care for your choices, they'd just toss you out.
i actually like michael steele now that he doesn't have to pretend the lunatics aren't lunatics.
The only reason the members of the left wing Democrat Parody don't consider their lunatics to be lunatics is because they are all lunatics. Top to bottom.
All certifiable.
Proof? Ok. Here ya go:
They actually say stupid silly shit like "President Obama deserves to be re-elected."
Yep. Certifiable they are; one and all.
Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler
wrote this when the states were still colonies of Great Britain.
He explained why democracies fail
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Largess means liberal giving of money.
This is exactly why our founders did not want us to be a Democracy in any way shape or form.
This is what they meant in their papers when they wrote that democracies always fail.
Democracy has many different meanings.
I am a NZer and we have a democracy and it has not failed. I now live in Australia, which is also a democracy, which also has not failed.
Ditto most of western Europe.
Note that we all have different forms of govt. With the uK it is FPP, with NZ is is MMP, with you guys it is a Republic. But they are all forms of democracy.
And obviously Tyler was wrong....
And I could give a good argument that your form of democracy has/is failed/failing...
if i took charge of the GOP you wouldn't like who i'd have run it.
Pfft. If the Republicans didn't care for your choices, they'd just toss you out.
i actually like michael steele now that he doesn't have to pretend the lunatics aren't lunatics.
Pfft. If the Republicans didn't care for your choices, they'd just toss you out.
i actually like michael steele now that he doesn't have to pretend the lunatics aren't lunatics.
You think you'll ever get to that stage in the Democratic party? Recognizing your lunatics, I mean.
Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler
wrote this when the states were still colonies of Great Britain.
He explained why democracies fail
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Largess means liberal giving of money.
This is exactly why our founders did not want us to be a Democracy in any way shape or form.
This is what they meant in their papers when they wrote that democracies always fail.
Democracy has many different meanings.
I am a NZer and we have a democracy and it has not failed. I now live in Australia, which is also a democracy, which also has not failed.
Ditto most of western Europe.
Note that we all have different forms of govt. With the uK it is FPP, with NZ is is MMP, with you guys it is a Republic. But they are all forms of democracy.
And obviously Tyler was wrong....
And I could give a good argument that your form of democracy has/is failed/failing...
That's why we want to try and get back to the Republic that we are suppose to be.
The government we have now is about controlling us,( social democracy) we will try, and I think that eventually we will win, as the majority of this nation is waking up out of their stupor.
It's a fight between those who are in power (with both parties) in Washington D.C. versus the majority of the people of this nation.
