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 and a Democracy are two separate Forms of Government. You can start with Plato and Cicero, and work your way through two thousand years of the following legal development of thought, and through the Enlightenment. There are dozens of great minds throughout the Enlightenment who adored the Republic and abhorred Democracy.
When someone like you starts namedropping Plato, I can't help but laugh out loud.
Madison in Federalist 14 summed up the material difference between democracy and republic:
"in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."
...and that's about it, the nonsense of the rightwing nuts notwithstanding.
You should read this, but you won't:
Madison?s Defintion(s) of Republic
So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.
That's Progress!
In FEDERAL elections. And it was freeholders of property, not just taxpayers.Speaking of stupid, to whom have you been sending your federal property taxes?
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who said only taxpayers should vote.
You really don't seem to have much of an attention span.
We've established that conservatives like you want an oligarchy. You want a small percentage of the population to be able to vote in elections that will put a much smaller portion of the population in control.
[
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.
The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' meaning people, and 'kratos' meaning power.
In a 'democracy' the sovereignty resides with the people themselves.
See, you idiot?
No, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.
In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.
Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.
Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.
I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.
We've established that conservatives like you want an oligarchy. You want a small percentage of the population to be able to vote in elections that will put a much smaller portion of the population in control.
We've established that any neutral/undecided reader is laughing at you.
This is when you know you're arguing with a paid shill; because no matter how bad their ass gets kicked, they keep coming back for more.
Federal Government Hires Internet TROLLS to Monitor and "Correct" Online Discussions | Humans Are Free
A Republic and a Democracy are two separate Forms of Government. You can start with Plato and Cicero, and work your way through two thousand years of the following legal development of thought, and through the Enlightenment. There are dozens of great minds throughout the Enlightenment who adored the Republic and abhorred Democracy.
When someone like you starts namedropping Plato, I can't help but laugh out loud.
Madison in Federalist 14 summed up the material difference between democracy and republic:
"in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."
...and that's about it, the nonsense of the rightwing nuts notwithstanding.
You should read this, but you won't:
Madison?s Defintion(s) of Republic
So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.
That's Progress!
Wrong, yet again.When someone like you starts namedropping Plato, I can't help but laugh out loud.
Madison in Federalist 14 summed up the material difference between democracy and republic:
"in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."
...and that's about it, the nonsense of the rightwing nuts notwithstanding.
You should read this, but you won't:
Madison?s Defintion(s) of Republic
So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.
That's Progress!
There are 2 forms of democracy - direct democracy and representative democracy. We have the latter, also known as a democratic republic.
Excuse me but I was paraphrasing romney and the republican party platform.Progressives have already been working on that one for about a century now. They've nearly pulled it off.We need to end this obstructionism by the progressives once and for all. That is why I believe we should turn this country into another North Korea and appoint a conservative to be President for Life. This foolishness regarding the Constitution, voting, and rights for people who haven't earned them must end. We can establish a small group of wealthy Americans to help run the country and all other Americans will serve them.
Be patient.
I'm sure you believe you were.Excuse me but I was paraphrasing romney and the republican party platform.Progressives have already been working on that one for about a century now. They've nearly pulled it off.We need to end this obstructionism by the progressives once and for all. That is why I believe we should turn this country into another North Korea and appoint a conservative to be President for Life. This foolishness regarding the Constitution, voting, and rights for people who haven't earned them must end. We can establish a small group of wealthy Americans to help run the country and all other Americans will serve them.
Be patient.
Excuse me but I was paraphrasing romney and the republican party platform.Progressives have already been working on that one for about a century now. They've nearly pulled it off.We need to end this obstructionism by the progressives once and for all. That is why I believe we should turn this country into another North Korea and appoint a conservative to be President for Life. This foolishness regarding the Constitution, voting, and rights for people who haven't earned them must end. We can establish a small group of wealthy Americans to help run the country and all other Americans will serve them.
Be patient.
The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' meaning people, and 'kratos' meaning power.
In a 'democracy' the sovereignty resides with the people themselves.
See, you idiot?
No, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.
In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.
Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.
Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.
I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.
That makes no sense. You're claiming a Democracy cannot have a Constitution? Why not?
No, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.
In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.
Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.
Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.
I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.
That makes no sense. You're claiming a Democracy cannot have a Constitution? Why not?
Boy ! That went way over your head.
That is not what The2ndAmendment said at all.
Wrong, yet again.So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.
That's Progress!
There are 2 forms of democracy - direct democracy and representative democracy. We have the latter, also known as a democratic republic.
The American republic provided an aspect of democracy in the HoR, but that's where it ended. That's why there is a Senate that was, prior to the 17th Amendment, there to represent the interests of the states.
No, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.
In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.
Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.
Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.
I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.
That makes no sense. You're claiming a Democracy cannot have a Constitution? Why not?
They are also classic examples of what occurs when the ruling class become so elite that their power base and structure cannot be challenged by the people.Yemen, Ghana, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somaliland...are all Constitutional Republics.
Just sayin'.
Wrong, yet again.So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.
That's Progress!
There are 2 forms of democracy - direct democracy and representative democracy. We have the latter, also known as a democratic republic.
The American republic provided an aspect of democracy in the HoR, but that's where it ended. That's why there is a Senate that was, prior to the 17th Amendment, there to represent the interests of the states.
"Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. They both have very wide definitions, and the government of this country falls into both categories.
Saying we're a republic but a democracy is like saying it's Coke but it's Pepsi.Wrong, yet again.There are 2 forms of democracy - direct democracy and representative democracy. We have the latter, also known as a democratic republic.
The American republic provided an aspect of democracy in the HoR, but that's where it ended. That's why there is a Senate that was, prior to the 17th Amendment, there to represent the interests of the states.
I guess prior to the 17th amendment you might have a point (even then we still elect state legislatures through popular vote...)
But it's 2013 and we DO have the 17th amendment, all of congress is elected through popular vote in their respecting states/districts. In every way possible we have a representative democracy. It's still a republic, but it's a democracy.
