What do you say to someone who seeks their own enslavement?

Stop voting for Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans. That's what I'd tell them.

Says the guy who supports Mitt, a man who described himself and his policies during his time as governor as "very progressive." A man who supported Obama's stimulus, NDAA, Obamacare and TARP...
Being progressive and be a Progressive are two different things.

But, I bet you knew that.
 
Both parties are owned by corporate and banking interests. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who the President is.
 
A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy.

Its a type of democracy just like a republic
A Republic is NOT a democracy. Moron.

It has some democratic elements to it, but it is not a democracy.

Now I'm wondering how you got out of fucking grammar school. I KNOW Venn diagrams are covered in grade school.
 
Both parties are owned by corporate and banking interests. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who the President is.

Oh really?


The people who were lied into fighting the Iraq war would disagree with you
 
Stop voting for Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans. That's what I'd tell them.

Says the guy who supports Mitt, a man who described himself and his policies during his time as governor as "very progressive." A man who supported Obama's stimulus, NDAA, Obamacare and TARP...
Being progressive and be a Progressive are two different things.

But, I bet you knew that.

Romneycare, one of the most progressive things a politician can do... But you kenw that.
 
Why is it you think that wealthy people are better than the average joe?

I am an "average joe", but everything I have I earned, without paying union dues.

I certainly think that wealthy people are better than me - AT MAKING MONEY.

I would never envy them for that.

But you would let them rule you for that?

The rich people who were better than me at making money never ruled me.

They gave me jobs, several in my long years, and I was free to leave any of them at any time if I ever felt that they might rule and abuse me.

Strangely, the last switch of that nature I made was when I left the union and joined the company's management training team which enabled me to progress and make myself a comfortable living and a comfortable pension, now, that I am retired, after working honestly for 37 and a half years after my first hiring at this horrible exploiting rich company.

If I could kick the union to the curb as an immigrant with a heavy accent, why can't you, who, I assume, are a native born American and a product of your cherished public "education system", based on your semi-incoherent rants?
 
No the main reason they designed the government was NOT to limit it.

The main reason they designed the government was to empower people.
Bullshit.

Why do you fucking think folks came to America before it was a country? Since you are a moron, don't answer that - it is rhetorical.

They came to escape the tyranny of governments; they came for freedoms. The design of our government was to LIMIT its power so that tyranny and any approach of absolute power was not possible - "three branches", "checks and balances". By default, that empowers people more than government. While true that we wanted to empower people, we also knew that democracies fail because of tyranny of the majority.

It is simply stunning how you lack even the most basic understanding of our government and it is also stunning how you have zero capability to learn a fucking thing.

Honestly, I don't know how you even advanced to junior high. I'm being serious.

They designed the government to empower the people.


That was the intent.

the checks and balences were put in there to keep any smaller group of people from subverting that power.
Guess what a few wealthy fucks did in Wis.?


Exactly and guess what Libs did.
They are a minority and have always been a minority. 20% right now.
They took over the states rights and gave the power to the Federal Government.
They took over the schools & universities, the media,Hollywood and the courts.
They also are emerging the three powers of government. All though some Repubs are doing the same on this one, over the last 20 years.
Conservatives and moderates, we the people,are starting to correct this and get us back to the Republic we are suppose to be,for the people by the people.
Not for the poor and only the poor, in order to keep them poor.
 
Forms of democracy



Forms of government



There are many variations on the forms of government that put ultimate rule in the citizens of a state:

Representative democracy

Representative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election. Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.

There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems.

Liberal democracy

Classical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name "liberal") of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws. Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized, with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.

Socialist democracy

Socialism, where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a representative democracy.

Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in rural communist China.

Anarchist democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.

Sortition

Sortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A much noted classical example would be the ancient Athenian democracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.

Tribal and consensus democracy

Certain ethnic tribes organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy.[20] However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.[21]


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Democracy#Forms_of_democracy
 
Last edited:
The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson
 
And we don't have a representative democracy.. we have a constitutional republic.. which is a government of laws and not individuals (See John Adams)

Being which the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC protects against the tyranny of the masses by using a constitution to place checks against the majority and checks against the government itself by specifically limiting it in power

Idiot twatsicle
 
11.7%

that is the amount of Robmoneys money that comes from regular Joes.


43.7%

of Obama comes from the little guy

Do you deny this is true?


Yes I deny it is true............here's a recap from 2008. Keep in mind Obama is extremely transparent in everything he does. hahahahahahaha

picture-22.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top