Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   "The USA is not a democracy".. I am not going to cite a source. There are several conservative hubbers with that opinion on the forum. And I'm not going to debate an obvious falsehood. What's worth a post is the reason WHY a whole gang of conservatives is so shrill in their insistence that the Unites States is NOT a democracy.   
   
   The reasoning behind the 'Constitutional' denial of the authority of the federal government is based on a literal interpretation of limited powers. According to their reasoning the Federal  Government doesn't have the authority to do health care because it's not an enumerated power in the Constitution. By this reasoning, the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do Medicare for senior citizens. It doesn't have the authority to do Social Security. It's not a surprise that all of those programs were opposed by Republicans.
   
   Therein lies the problem. Social Security and Medicare are enormously popular and no candidate can run on a platform of repealing the two main lifelines to seniors. Health Care is likely to be popular over time. The GOP has a strategy to deal with creeping 'socialism'.  They are opposing any reforms of any 'entitlement' programs. If you look at the GOP proposals, they want to choke the programs into failure, and blame the failure on 'socialism'.
   
   Even most GOP voters expect Medicare and Social Security for themselves. (They want to cut off entitlements for *those* people.)  So if wingnuts kill Health Care, Medicare and Social Security, EVERYONE from the far left well into the middle right will clamor for replacement programs (for me, because I'm entitled).
   
   The GOP needs an excuse to counter a populist move demanding the social programs every major country provides for their people. If the GOP can, they will run this country into a ditch economically to kill 'socialism'. What excuse do you contrive to deny Seniors SS and medical care to all but the rich.
   
   1) It's 'unconstitutional'.
   2) The USA is not a democracy.
   
   Most teabaggers are like the good citizens of Emerald City - nice folks utterly convinced in the wisdom of the Wizard.  But pull back the curtain and look at the implications of the fraud. Don't believe me. Come election time, ask the candidates how they would save the 'socialist' programs that YOU expect when you retire. And vote - because this IS a democracy.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      FitnezzJimposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This one's simple.
      Can we say "elective oligarchy"?
      
      We did it to ourselves.
      We can undo it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The problem is not an 'oligarchy'.
         
         It's a 'plutocracy' that has too much elective influence.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            FitnezzJimposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I prefer thinking of it as an elected oligarchy.  We give some of them the temporary privilege to be a practising elitist through our elective process.
            
            It's not all about money, though I do have to admit it sure seems that way sometimes.
            
            Doesn't matter too much which way you think of it though, the bottom line is still ..
            
            We did it to ourselves.  We can undo it.

            replyreport
      2. 61

         Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm a simple man that cleaned toilets, washed floors, dishes, unloaded trucks, pushed racks. Anything I could do to keep a job I did. So help me understand this statement:
         "They want to cut off entitlements for *those* people."
         Do they mean me? Do they think I'm entitled to something I dont deserve?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Do they mean me? Do they think I'm entitled to something I dont deserve?"
            
            It depends on who you are and it depends on who the bigots are. In some states *they* are hispanics. In other states *they* are blacks.  In the context of social justice *they* could be any religious minority or the discrimination may be along sexual orientation.  My point is that the antogonists  in this scene expect at the finish to INCLUDE benefits for themselves they expect they can legitimately EXCLUDE from other groups.
            
            This is false advertising by conservatives at teh very TOP of the food chain who want to eliminate ALL the programs of the New Deal and are pandering to any grop with deap-seated resentments of some OTHER group. Seeing only what they want to see, under the guise of strict constitutionalism, these groups are participating in self-destruction of New Deal benefits for ALL  groups themselves included.
            
            Hatred blinds you to all but hate.

            replyreport
      3. 60

         samboiamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No I can't

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Good explanation.  It will however be trumped by: "It's not a Democracy, cause the Consty-tushin don't specifically call it one, so there!"

      replyreport
      1. 68

         alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         WOW  you are a prophet!   immediate canonisation !

         replyreport
   3. 62

      Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Did you have a vote on the bailout?
      Did you have a vote on health care?
      Did you have a vote on any policy ever?
      
      If you lived in a Democracy you would have! But since you live in a Representative Republic your vote is subject to the whims of your REPRESENTATIVE!
      
      I asked it once and will ask again
      
      Do you get paid to be wrong?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         So, my friend - educate us. Where on the planet is there a democracy?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Texas! Where the stars shine bright!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I had not heard Texas had done away with electing representatives.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  No! We're just trying to do away with Democrats!

                  replyreport
         2. 62

            Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know where a Democracy is and don't care. I (along with you) live in a Representative Republic, that's all I care about.
            
            By the way, how much do they pay to be wrong? It must be a lucrative gig for you.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ROFLMAO!!!   You can't think of ONE country in the whole world that qualifies as a democracy (according to your ridiculous definition).
               
               And so trapped by your own STUPIDITY, you say I'm wrong???!!!!!!

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Doug, why don't you prove me wrong, prove that the U.S. is not a Representative Republic!
                  
                  Is there a form of Democracy in the U.S.? Sure is! But calling the U.S. a Democracy is just wrong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I nevre sais that it's not a Republic. I never said it's not a Representative Republic.  You can call it a Constitutional Republic if it makes you happy. It's also a DEMOCRACY. (See 'synonyms').
                     
                     For you to be correct - an unlikely possiblity - you must conceed that not a single country  on the planet - NOT EVEN ONE - meets your "definition" of democracy.  Under those circumstances, by your narrow definition that no country has ever met, I grant you - the USA is not a democracy.
                     
                     N0w if we have that topical hijacking out of the way - I guess you will conceed I was right in my explanation WHY it's critical to wingnuts that the USA is "NOT A  DEMOCRACY".

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        It is a Representative Republic, it is a FORM of Democracy but in no stretch of the imagination is it a true Democracy! It matters not that a single country is not governed by a true Democracy and for you to say it does shows the weakness of your statement that the USA is a DEMOCRACY!
                        
                        How much have you made today Dougie?

                        replyreport
                     2. 68

                        alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Nicely put and proved your point with simplicity -
                        
                        - and bad spelling, you should not let the wingnuts get you so overexcited Doug

                        replyreport
            2. 59

               Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You forgot to add "so there".
               
               You are such a masochist.  Why do you enjoy getting your butt whupped so much?

               replyreport
            3. 72

               Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "By the way, how much do they pay to be wrong? It must be a lucrative gig for you." I wouldn't know, but you seem to be racking up a huge salary in the "willful minsunderstanding" department...

               replyreport
   4. 79

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I always laugh when I see this. First, they don't seem to know what a republic is. Second, they don't seem to realize that the Democratic Republican Party was ONE party...typically across the aisle from the Federalists.

      replyreport
2. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Huh?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Did I use words too big for you?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely! I'm so stupid you should have had me killed as a baby.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Now thats liberal!

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            are you in your 230th trimester?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You know I am Ronny!

               replyreport
3. 68

   alternate poetposted 14 years ago

   Nicely put, clear and quite obvious to most people I would have thought, including to most people on these forums.  The hot-air opposition here is all from very few people with many different voices trying to 'big up' their view. Don't lose heart Doug, most interested observers to these arguments know you are right.

   replyreport
4. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 14 years ago

   Excellent explanation, Doug.

   replyreport
5. 60

   JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

   Friendlyword
   check this out for size and tell us where you fit into the changes that president Obama has promised.
   
   The Obama administration needs to tell the American people the truth before proclaiming the country is on the upswing.
   
   Do you remember candidate Obama's message to Joe the plumber ''we need to spread the wealth around ''
   16 months into his term.
   The average pay for a PUBLIC worker is $70,000 plus 40,000 in fringe benefits ( $110,000 ), public unemployment is 3% and Obama has increased the deficit 4 x $1.3 BILION  ( Bush deficit )more than president Bush.
   The average pay in the PRIVATE sector is $50,000 plus $ 9000 in fringe benefits ($59,000) , private unemployment is 9.7%+
   and the government will have spent $ billions in extending unemployment benefits.
   Something is very very wrong with the above situation. President Obama promised jobs, the jobs that cost the taxpayer more is out of balance.
   Now we know what he meant when he said '' save or create jobs ''.The unions and special interest got him elected and it appears he is doing a good job of paying them back at the expense of the private sector.
   Tell me it isn't so. Enough is enough, it's time for the government to stop spending and to start cutting.

   replyreport
6. 76

   lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

   The most cynical and lieing part of it to me is their attacking Obama as "wanting to cut you social security"....as if they ever cared about ss....as you pointed out, they were against it from the get-go.
   Their idea is to privitize it and let the banks handle it. Profit over people once again.
   Even cutting the waste is defined as killing gramma.
   
   And every single one of their parents benefitted from ss--and they will too, as that poll showed they are mostly older white males.
   They just want to pull the ladder up now..."I got mine, the hell with you".
   Taxes/shmaxes...if they were sincere, they would be on Obama's side! He wants to go after those upper incomes/businesses who have avoided taxes, and shifted the whole burden to the middle class.
   
   Help the poor too much, eh?
   Give me a break!
   People who worked hard--2 and 3 jobs! couldn't make it in this high-priced, profit-driven economy.
   Take the money and run...that's the republican philosophy,imo, and until these baggers show they are any different, who needs them? Trickle down part 3?? No thanks!

   replyreport
7. 60

   The Dix Viewposted 14 years ago

   Such a nice job.  well said!

   replyreport