jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (172 posts)

Who Wants Democracy?

  1. AnnCee profile image79
    AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

    Who is calling for democracy?

    Students

    Hollywood

    Unions

    Muslim Brotherhood

    Google

    Facebook

    Obama Administration

    China

    Iran

    Chavez

    Castro

    Communists

    Socialists



    The founders of the United States of America worked to assure that this country would be a Republic, not a Democracy because ultimately a democracy results in mob rule.  The best organized mob wins.



       
                       

       

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Your quotes contradict each other.  A republic is a form of democracy.

      Nice try though....

      1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lol...

        But the founders never used the word democracy. They actually were against using it.

        But, call it what you will.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Google the definition of 'republic' and you discover ,, well, I will quote dictionary.com

      re·pub·lic -  a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

      So every democracy is a republic - but wingnuts have tried to rewrite the meaning of the word 'republic'.

      This takes on special significance if you read this statement by Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips.

      "PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but...."

      Folks, I don't make this stuff up.

      http://www.alan.com/2010/11/30/tea-part … ty-owners/

      1. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare! "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

        We had that rule in the UK too - until 150 or so years ago anyway - who says progress is a good thing though?!!! What next, take away sufferage for women?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Take away suffrage?

          It's on the menu. Try this post from yesterday.

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/68093

          kirstenblog's post

          1. superwags profile image82
            superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry if this offends, it's not meant to, but I think people in Europe struggle to get our heads around American politics! I know this obviously represents a small number of people compared to the two main parties, but it's still got a bit of popular support, presumably?

            In the UK our most "right wing" party worth talking about is considerably further to the left than the Democrats. It terrifies us, frankly!

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Tell me more.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Women's suffrage in the UK took hold immediately prior to WWI.  American women in the western territories were able to vote but lost that vote once the territories became states.  Following WWI women's suffrage took hold in the US.  The founding fathers feared democracy because they saw it as mob rule. 

          Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

              * Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death.

          Though not said by Franklin it does contain a point of contention regarding rule by majority vote.  On the other end of the argument is the "Wisdom of the Crowd."

          The wisdom of the crowd refers to the process of taking into account the collective opinion of a group of individuals rather than a single expert to answer a question. ...

          Given the trends of liberalism, socialism, the administrative state and the arrogance of elected officials and life long bureaucrats the crowd doesn't sound so bad.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Doesn't sound so bed?  WTF does that even mean?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It means I am tired. I edited that typo.

        3. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You would be best off not to listen to Doug Hughes, who wants you believe what he wants you to believe, not know the truth.   I'm a TEA Party person, and I've never actually even heard of the guy until now.  Nor the "Tea Party Nation". 

          All you really need to know, is that the TEA Party movement is nothing more than ordinary citizens who have spontaneously acted to correct the course of our nation.   The so-called wisdom of the political class has all but caused a global economic armageddon, and we're about setting our nation's finances in order, and getting our government back downsized to where it should be, along with a host of other common sense ideas.

          Doug is threatened by such things, and acts similar to an outspoken grade-school child, who calls names and tries to prejudice others against people he does't know, and is perfectly willing to mislead you, use untruth, or or flat out lies, to accomplish the deed.

          It is the farthest thing from any TEA Party agenda, to restrict voting rights, or any of the other crap that Doug wants you to think.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You want to explain how the Koch Brothers are just "ordinary"  citizens?

            And I just heard on the news yesterday that the tea-party has basically high-jacked the American agenda...how could that be?  MUST be some important ie $$$$ involved for that to happen.

            Just think about it....before the mid-term election, the T-P'ers were screaming about jobs--"Mr. President, where are the jobs?" blah blah blah

            Now it is all about ending abortion, cutting money from the poor, and the further destruction of the middle class in favor of big biz.

            The tp is nothing more than the extreme right and corporate greed-balls using confused and scared people.   IMO

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL< I don't even KNOW who t he Koch brothers are.   Apparently, they're some kind of invented boogeyman that gets tossed around.  This much I know, that I, and everyone I communicate and associate with politically,  is unrelated in ANY way to whoever the Koch Brothers are.   Every person I have ever met believes what they believe long before the TEA (taxed enough Already) meme went around. 

              You can have your opinion, of course, but it bears no relationship to reality, and your invented linkages, etc, are just fiction.    Invented boogeymen to try to defame ordinary people, by self proclaimed elites who are desperate to cling to power - and take more of your money.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "I don't even KNOW who t he Koch brothers are."
                That's exactly how they like it; they don't want people looking too closely at who is bankrolling the tea party movement.

                "Invented boogeymen to try to defame ordinary people,"
                No, they exist, and so does their money. They're spending millions to save billions, and you're carrying water for them.

                "who are desperate to cling to power - and take more of your money."
                yeah, okay. roll

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, and just so you can't say I'm being a partisan hack and getting all my news from a partisan source, how about this little gem from Forbes magazine:

                "The Americans for Prosperity group, a Tea Party group that is a Koch Brothers front, has put up a website and petition called www.standwithwalker.com. The website attacks all collective bargaining – not just for public employees’ unions. Americans for Prosperity is also organizing a rally tomorrow in Wisconsin to support Gov. Walker.

                You really have to wonder how long it will take for Tea Party devotees to realize just how badly they are being used."

                That's Forbes, dude. Forbes. Hardly a liberal rag.

                1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                  Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol That's not Forbes. That's from a blog by Rick Ungar who describes himself as a contributor to Forbes. The magazine allows a range of point of views but I wouldn't consider it an editorial by Forbes. And Ungar referenced Mother Jones, a totally liberal online rag. So you are a totally partisan hack. lol

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Blogs dot forbes dot com.

                    Move those goalposts all you like.

                2. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Jeff, they don't know - which is fine.

                  You go to teach them and they don't believe. OK.

                  You show facts and properly source it. And they stick their fingers in their ears and go "La La La - I can't hear YOU!!!!"

                  But not all - there was a conservative yesterday who didn't agree with me about the Brothers Koch, but agreed he will watch. That's enough for me. Never a liberal will he be, but he's not interested in being a sucker, either.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Never a liberal will he be, but he's not interested in being a sucker, either."

                    Yeah, I get that people have their own ideas about what's good and bad policy, and that's cool. We can talk about those and be respectful of each other. What I do not get is why so many people are obviously so interested in being suckers.

              3. DTR0005 profile image85
                DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There are literally thousands of pages on the internet from both conservative and liberal sources that tell you exactly who the Koch boys are and what they are in to and what they stand to gain by "buying legislation."
                http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 … fact_mayer

                1. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  They gave $45,000 to Gv walker!

                  "Koch Brothers will buy Wisconsin state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicitated bids for which there will be no oversight"

                  1. DTR0005 profile image85
                    DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, you caught that one to LMC lolll

              4. DTR0005 profile image85
                DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe MIT as a source, or are they just another engine of communism....
                http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 … fact_mayer

                1. DTR0005 profile image85
                  DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry wrong link....http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N7/koch.html

      2. AnnCee profile image79
        AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You forgot the layers, Doug.


           

        http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanI … emrep.html

        Like you care.  http://www.emofaces.com/en/smilies/s/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil-smile.gif

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with the lot of what you said, but I want to point to (what i think is) a mistake:

        "So every democracy is a republic..."

        I think you accidentally got those backwards - every republic is a democracy.

        A democracy could include a government where everyone votes on the issues directly, and thus requires no leadership.

        Anyway, it is just a nit-pick.

        Overall: Wurd.

      4. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doug,

        I realize this is a late addition, but I wanted to point out one distinct difference between a republic and a democracy as they are not the same thing.

        In a republic, like the United States, sovereignty lay in each individual person. Each individual can cast a single vote for any given topic.

        While this is not the only distinction, it is the one I find most interesting.

        In a democracy, sovereignty lay in the entire body of the people. For a decision to be made in a democracy, the entire body of people must vote as one.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So.   do you make this up or do you have a source?

          I quoted a source -  the dictionary. You are entitled to an opinion,  but this one is not tethered to reality.

          1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
            Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Of course I have sources.

            "A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair"."(1)

            "democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
            a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president""(2)

            "Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]"(3)

            "The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy."(3)

            Moreover, the pledge of allegiance literally says "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All!"

            In a democracy, the majority literally "rules".

            Our Founders wanted individual freedoms and responsibilities. They scorn the word "democracy.(4)


            (1)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
            (2)wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
            (3)http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
            (4)Political Incorrect Guide to our Founding Fathers

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              All good in principle but it fails.

              ""A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government."

              Likewise in a democracy.

              " The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think."

              Fine, but in practice it doesn't work like that does it after all, you do have the highest prison population in the western world!

              " Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority"

              Again, fine but you do not respect the natural rights of individuals do you!

              "One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy."(3)"

              Why not? We in the UK are a democracy and one vote in a jury will indeed stop the majority from depriving anyone of their rights.


              I think you'll find that you aren't even ruled by a majority, you are ruled by a minority of capitalists who don't give a fig for your rights.

              1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
                Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes good opinions. But how our country was formed is completely different. And your not paying attention. We are not ruled at all. In the UK, however, you literally are ruled over. It's a Monarch.

                You don't live here? You have no clue whats going on apparently, and why are you arguing about the U.S. in the first place. The UK has plenty of problems on it's own.

                "you are ruled by a minority of capitalists who don't give a fig for your rights."

                Congress is not full of capitalists in case you have not noticed.

                "Fine, but in practice it doesn't work like that does it after all, you do have the highest prison population in the western world!"

                The jury system is the one exception to republic. Either way, these are not opinions from me. It's facts. As your friend said "I don't make this stuff up".

                Moving on, I'm not going to keep commenting on here, with you John. It annoys me when people think they know so much, and show that they know so little, then you realize it's someone who doesn't even live in the US. Anybody who lives in the UK needs to worry about their own problems, as they have plenty to worry about.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  We are not ruled by a monarch any more! She is head of state by title alone, she rules nothing.

                  Do you honestly think there is no value in an unattached view? No space for somebody outside the US to comment on how the rest of the world sees you?

                  No, thought not, you are perfect and above any comment from the rest of the world!

                  1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
                    Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It doesn't matter what she titles herself, sir. It's still, by definition and evident by the processes of your government, a Monarch.

                    I personally welcome unattached views and I apologize for those comments as I have unattached views of certain topics in the UK.

                    Good debate.

              2. Seafarer Mama profile image87
                Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You nailed that one, right.

                Right now, citizens need to take our country back...and balance the power much more than it is now....and Wisconsin was a good start!

              3. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, well, you don't understand any of it. 

                In a democracy, the government is merely the agent of the majority of those who vote.   

                In a republic, the government is specifically delegated powers, by law, prohibited from anything else, and the people in it, are representatives of the people, usually chosen by some democratic method. 

                In a strict Democracy, government is not limited, except that it follow the majority's whims.   In a republic, the government is limited to whatever powers it is delegated legally.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And why would you be any better placed to understand anything?

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Because I'm American, and I understand my Constitution well, as well as American history. 

                    You keep wandering around in vague generalities, as if you're searching for the "gotcha" points, where you get someone to accept a vague generality, and then attack for doing so. 

                    It would be much more productive to simply speak honestly and not attempt to obscure your purpose in speaking.

            2. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for posting that.
              Good stuff.
              Stuff I've tried to explain before, but most people just scoffed at it.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There's no big deal in being a republic remember the USSR was one too.

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  By self given name only.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Remember that the next time you decide to use the Nazi party to define socialism they were socialist by self given name only!

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're correct!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Uh oh...the Brenda seal of approval, otherwise known as the carp of death.

        1. AnnCee profile image79
          AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you have something to say about the OP?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I already did.  I guess you missed it while you were watching Hannity's Happy Fun House.

    4. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AnnCee, among the list of people you say are calling for "democracy", are a number of names of people or organizations or movements that are extremely hostile to freedom and self government. 

      The fact that we use the term "democracy" in a loose and flexible way, combined with the complete misuse of the word by such anti-freedom and anti-self governance types as Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Castro, Chavez, and others does not invalidate the general concept of Democracy - that being rule by permission of the people - or at least rule with input from the people.

      The US is a Republic, which is not a direct Democracy.   A direct democracy is rule by people, not law.   Our nation is ruled by law, with our federal government being severely restricted to minimal number of powers or granted authority.   In our philosophy of government (at least that of the founders), the government only is authorized to do those things the people consent for them to do, with that consent being revocable by the people. 

      Around the world, this version of governance by law, rather than by people, is quite unique, though it has dramatically decayed from solid and principled foundation of our Constitution and our government is way outside of it's specifically delegated authorities.   Still, you seem to seek to defame or otherwise spoil the term "Democracy" merely by the misuse of those who do not seek it, but seek to mislead, by calling all kinds of very undemocratic things "democracy".   

      I appeal to you to retain the viability of the language, by defending it, rather than allowing the lowest and worst denominator to do that.    And to defend the concept of self governance, as worthy and sensible, as it is.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "I appeal to you to retain the viability of the language, by defending it, rather than allowing the lowest and worst denominator to do that."

        That's an interesting paradox, right there. smile

  2. superwags profile image82
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    A republic is a democracy, as is a constitutional government as exists in my country.

    This one of the weirdest and ill-informed posts I've ever seen on here!

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You must be new.  This one came much closer to the truth than most teabagisms.

      1. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh right, are these the famous tea party lot that we've heard so much about on the other side of the pond?!

        I mean no offence here, but Jesus you lot scare us sometimes!

        1. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Uh Superwags, a lot of us are really scared too - it's like the country up and ordered mail order lobotomies. I have been around quite a while, but I have never seen "stupid" placed on a pedestal quite like it is now.

          1. AnnCee profile image79
            AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I know what you mean.   They elected a mysterious community organizer president.  http://grangefieldlanguages.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5184078970b0120a95a5aa4970b-800wi


            http://www.moonbattery.com/emperor-obama.jpg

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              We the People - elected a community organizer (Graduate of Harvard, Senator, Constitutional Scholar) as president. and AC watch because -

              We're gonna do it AGAIN!!!

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Notice the complete lack of logic.   

                BTW, Doug...   how do you know Obama's a graduate of Harvard?   What makes you think he's a "Constitutional Scholar"?

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Obama joins Seven Presidents who were Harvard Grads, including Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy

                  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … d-degrees/

                  "Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

                  Factcheck.org

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Notice Doug how the poster screams like a stuck pig when they think that I've accused them of lying but has absolutely no qualms about accusing you of lying!

                  2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So, you believe he is a "Constitutional Scholar" because he said he is?

                  3. Seafarer Mama profile image87
                    Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oooh, what a punch....but he speaks the truth! We need that boldness in our country, now, and many citizens agree, since we put our votes behind him and elected him President!

                2. DTR0005 profile image85
                  DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Lady Love told me she was in class with him...

                  1. junko profile image79
                    junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    She wouldn't lie about that, would she?

              2. AnnCee profile image79
                AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                According to the University of Chicago Law School, Obama did not have tenure. His formal title was "Senior Lecturer."

                At the same time, however, it is routine in academia to refer to anyone with a modicum of experience who teaches students as a "professor" with a small p. The University of Chicago says that Obama "served as a professor in the Law School."

                http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c … obama.html

                Small p indeed.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Probably why Doug used a small p then.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile

      [In honor of FK; some of you will get it.]

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Smiling feces as a response?

    3. ediggity profile image59
      ediggityposted 5 years ago

      This was the original construct of the US Government:

      A Constitutional Republic:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wingnuts trying to rewrite history and the dictionary.

        1. ediggity profile image59
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ediggity wrote:

              This was the original construct of the US Government:

              A Constitutional Republic:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOcFVBoA-o




          No, that's what you're trying to do.  smile

    4. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

      lol Ron.
      Hey, I was just agreeing with AnnCee; she 'most always posts good stuff!   And I can't fight with everyone, so when I see posts I agree with, I say so.  The "democracy" of the liberal majority seems to have taken over these days.   See there---just another reason a Republic is better than a democracy.  In a democracy, when majority rules.....then I ask what if that majority is fundamentally in the wrong?   ...Then..."wrong" rules.   Not so in a correct Republic, which sets specific ground rules, and then the majority rules from there.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Were you home schooled?

      2. Flightkeeper profile image77
        Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, you know you are being effective when you have people who are ignorant and don't know that you and the OP are discussing forms of government instead of type of government, accuse you of being not so smart.  It's always funny to see people who think they are so smart do themselves in by writing posts that show their ignorance.  Good job!

    5. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Logic?

      Tax cut=jobs....right?

      WHERE ARE THEY?       

      And I would suggest you google "do Koch brothers fund the tea-party?"

      See what comes up.

      I know for a fact, the Bro's gave a party after the mid-terms, and all the t-p'ers were invited...along with the new Speaker......

      Tit-for-tat.....nothing is free.

      Tea-Party=Koch Brothers.   Whether you know it or not.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Tea-Party=Koch Brothers.   Whether you know it or not"

        That defies logic. 

        The TEA Party follows NOBODY.   It has no leaders.  NOBODY directs the people.   

        That's incomprehensible to liberals, who are nothing but slavish followers of others, but it just happens to be true.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pull the other leg!

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            John Holden is a psycopathic, dictatorial, racist, mean, prejudiced, greedy, irresponsible leech. 

            Oh, wait...  You would probably object to my broadcasting that to the world.  After all, I don't know you.   

            But, you seem fine with all this "broadcasting to the world" about others, whom you do not know.   

            So, explain to me, then... why I should be civil to you... and not shout insulting, demeaning and inflamatory lies about you, but the liberals in here are given a pass for the same behavior, but about me?   Have you the stones to answer that?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Blimey, all I said was that I didn't believe your claim about the TEA party being without leaders!

              I agree, I don't know any tea partier's personally (thank god) but too much of what they do is orchestrated to be leaderless.

              And if you think doubting the lack of leadership is insulting, demeaning and inflammatory then I am afraid you are too sensitive for this world.

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You don't "believe my claim".   

                So, you just shouted to the world "weholdthesetruths is a big fat liar!"

                Again, why should I be civil to you, when you won't be civil to me?   It's a question I asked of you, and I do expect a reasoned answer.   If you have any guts, that is.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I did no such thing, I said I didn't believe you. I made no comment about anything else, I gave no reason. It could be that you are mistaken or mislead and not a big fat liar (never having seen you I couldn't possibly comment on your size).
                  I see nothing uncivil about disagreeing with you.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This was never about "disagreeing with me", though.   

                    If I ask the question "What's the best way to encourage scholastic achievement" we could both answer, and have "disagreement".   That would mean we don't think the same thing.   It could be that one of us is right, one wrong, both right, or both wrong.   

                    Doug, ilovemychris, and an assortment of others, possibly including you, wish to believe that the  TEA Party movement is just an artificial, paid-for activisism, sponsored by someone you can demonize in public,  to try to marginalize the message and ideas.   

                    However, I come along and tell that I am in the TEA Party movement, and that I am an authoritative person about who and what it is, being part of it.  At that point, you do not have the privilege of "disagreeing" with me.  At that point, you either accept what I say, or shout to the world that I'm a liar.  That's your choices.   It is not a matter of opinion, as I am IN, and you are OUT, therefore, i am the authority, you are NOT.   

                    And I am here to tell that every TP person I have ever met, read, contacted, communicated with, etc, is NOT a follower of anyone.   That the entire movement IS spontaneous and grassroots.   Any after the fact efforts by the professional liars to try to say otherwise... is just a lie, plain and simple.   

                    So, back to my original post...   Am I free, then, to call you all those things because you seem to be in political opposition to me?   Yes, or no?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Absolutely free to call me anything you like, it matters not a jot to me!
                      Those who know me know them to be false and thus they'll do you more harm than me.
                      Those who don't know me will form their own opinions and not be too taken in by your opinion.

              2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, I thought I was the hostile one.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

    6. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      "Forget the Muslim Brotherhood---We have "Koch Brotherhood"-- Also known as "Americans for Prosperity"AKA "Tea Party" AKA "Union Busters"

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        aka "lovemychris" is the most insulting, rude, spiteful, hateful, demeaning prolific poster on hubpages.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I thought that was me!

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I haven't said that about you.  I did say you'd object if I did, since I don't know you.   "Ilovemychris" IS known to me, and I can say that with absolute dead certain authority.   I have read scores of posts, and there's a steady drumbeat in all of them, a level of incivility  and hate that no respectable person would have.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't see that disagreeing with you and having firm beliefs qualifies as incivility or hateful, and I can say that with absolute dead certain authority.

              I actually see plenty of incivility in your posts!

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do not object to people "disagreeing" with me.   I expect it.  I am not bothered by "disagreement".   

                But our matter above isn't about opinion.

    7. wildbobo profile image60
      wildboboposted 5 years ago

      Who doesn't want democrazy?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Teabagggers - They are working to rewrite history and the dictionary to suit their vision of a government for the rich. Read this statement by Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips.

        "PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but...."

        This is scary stuff.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          uncivil jerks like you are far more concern.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Agree or disagree I see absolutely nothing uncivil about the post you reference therefore can only assume you are talking to your self.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I refuse to even type the word he uses to refer to TEA Party types.   

              It is the most demeaning, insulting, rude, uncivil, and foul nonsense, all made up just to demean people he doesn't know. 

              Basically, he's a crude, uncivil, and hate filled jerk to call people that.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But he used no other word than tea party in the post you complained about!

                I get a lot more hate vibes off you than off Doug!

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  are you freaking blind?????????????????

                  "TEA...GGER"

                  Sheesh.  You're so rude it's hard to be civil to you.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Tea bagger! So what big deal.

                    By the way I'm still waiting for either an explanation or apology for your accusation of my being dishonest for having the nerve to disagree with you.

                    1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Ahh, a fellow jerk, then.  No wonder you like him. 

                      You're just as much an uncivil, arrogant jerk as he is, then.

                2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  In addition to that, he makes the utterly insane claim that some twit (who nobody knows and certainly has no input in my, or any other tp type's thinking, defines the TEA Party as some kind of anti-voting rights wackos. 

                  IT IS ALL A BIG FAT LIE.

    8. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Oh no--they're NOT winning this time.
      We have all had JUST about enough!

      It's not just about destroying unions, it's about privatizing the United States!
      They want private corporate ownership of everything....the air you breathe, the food you eat, the energy you use, the schools you attend, the job you have....everything.

      That way you are indebted to the Oligarchy and the Banks.

      Gvt here is for the people, not a group of Internationalists who cant' even be bothered to keep their money in the USA and pay taxes on it!!!!!


      Hate? nah...I feel sorry for you. I don't even hate neo-cons anymore. It's over.

      The whole world has had enough.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "private corporate ownership of the air you breath, food you eat, energy you use, schools you attend"

        The epitome of ignorant rambling.

        Yes, we want to eat, that's why food production is NOT collectivized. 

        Yes, we want clean air, which is what people with socialized industry don't have.

        yes, we want  private production of energy, so we can have it without shortage.

        Yes, we want private schools, they're a billion times better than incompetently run public schools.

        yes, we want private employment.  After all, SOMEONE has to be productive.   Public employees are all takers, and not makers, of wealth.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hm junk food and obesity.
          Grossly overpriced energy and held to ransom over the supply.
          Private schools of course that only take the pick and not the rest.
          OK who needs the police firefighters et al.

          I'm still waiting.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Would you care to explain what you wrote?  It makes NO sense.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It makes as much sense as the majority of what you write.

    9. prettydarkhorse profile image66
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

      Is the principle governing the government here in the US not democracy? Is it then plutocracy or autocracy??????

      The US is a federal republic country in which the people vote for officials who will represent them. A republic is a type of democracy.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not really.   

        A republic is a country with a government that has legally delegated and specified powers.   The members of that government are chosen by democratic means.   

        It is not a democracy, though it has specific democratic aspects.

    10. AnnCee profile image79
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

      You forgot the layers, Doug.







      More at:  http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanI … emrep.html

    11. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      This is 2011, in case anyone forgot.

      We do not live as they did back then...and for a righty to talk about individual freedom is ridiculous, given their stand on abortion and workers rights.

      I can name the problem with America in 2 words: Money Talks.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, the government is the most greedy, unprincipled, wasteful, destructive, and money-hungry monster of them all, and it has FAR FAR FAR too much money to be trusted.

    12. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      "Mitt Romney tweeted that he supported Walker "for doing what's necessary to rein in out-of-control public sector pay and benefits."

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 … z1EhtqeRId

      "Meanwhile, the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981 and, according to Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes."

      Connect the dots.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, two thirds of companies in Wisconsin are not making any money.

    13. AnnCee profile image79
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

      Who wants Democracy?

      Community organizers want Democracy.

      Hugo Chavez wants Democracy.



      http://society.ezinemark.com/venezuela- … 95c66.html

      Barack Obama wants Democracy.



      http://www.steinbock.org/blog/2008/11/1 … democracy/


      Good thing the United States is a REPUBLIC.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/world … venez.html

    14. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Ahhhh...

      "the Forbes magazine annual report listing Koch as one of the largest private companies in the nation or the fact that a high fraction of the largest companies within Koch Industries are listed on the Koch website as LLCs, LPs or other frequent pass-through entities."

      "pass through entities--do not pay corporate income tax."

      "the issue of the large amount of business activity being done by sometimes very large businesses which is not paying corporate income tax but competes against other companies that do."

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ … turns.html

      Sharks! Just like elRomney-o and by association.....Walker. AMO

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Having had an LLC for a few years, let me explain...   

        It's true, the LLC does NOT pay taxes.   All profits of the LLC pass directly to the owners of the LCC, who DO pay taxes on it.

        So, either you lied, or you are wholesale ignorant.

    15. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Oh, I hope I get easy-desk-duty today.....I have lots of searching to do!! wink

      Off to my one job, not unionized, but with a pretty decent boss....even though I use him to make a lot of points.

      Class warfare? yeah...and we lost!!! smile

    16. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago

      The rest of the world needs to take a hard look at the most sucessful countries and model their government after them. One can easily attest to the fact that there are still many systems out there which service only the few privledged members of their socioties and leave the rest in the dust of poverty. The human race is supposed to get better, become more tolerant of eachothers differences, and move away from vices such as tyrany, oppression, and slavery. We need to all be more charitable, but not to the point where we are cottling those who are unwilling to help themselves. We need to put a stronger emphasis on education and less towards materialism, or entertainment.
      I think it is a tradgety that our great nation is finding more and more entertainment in baseless programing which educates our future generations by pumping needless dramma into their psychies. We are so pulgged into our social networking that people can't even drive down the street without crashing into the people infront of them because they're too busy texting.
      It's time to wake up, stop pumping pills into our kids, and give them an old fashoned spanking.
      Time to turn off the compu.......

    17. mortimerjackson profile image61
      mortimerjacksonposted 5 years ago

      One of the greatest weaknesses in a democracy is its inability to promote the rights of minorities. In a truly democratic nation, there would be no constitution. It would be the will of the majority that decides the rights of everyone.

      The representative republic system in place in America was meant as a means to put checks on both the people and the state, so that no one group can exploit the other.

      It's amazing to me how many people on Hubpages insist on debating politics when they know absolutely nothing about the way their own government works.

      1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is a great comment. You hit the nail on the head.

    18. prettydarkhorse profile image66
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

      Jr then Sr. Lecturer, then Assistant Professor I II III, Associate Professor I II III, then Professor I II III IV. By the time you are fifty plus on the average, you will be full pledged Professor based on the number of book published or years in service (or if somebody will retire and the position is vacant).

      It take years to be promoted from one step to another depending on the merit system used.

    19. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago

      Oh by the way Ann Cee, you missed ordinary people off your list of people who want democracy.

    20. AnnCee profile image79
      AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

      I'm reading a book titled AN EXECUTION IN THE FAMILY: One Son's Journey by Robert Meeropol, son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. 

      I've read quite a few biographies written by American Communists, it's an interesting way to take a look into that world.


      Here's an interesting quote, speaking of his adoptive father's political opinions:


      Leftists never change.   They are always able to swallow the big evil frogs their movement spawns.  Always able to justify every evil up to and including genocide.

      http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/antiquesofworcester/pictures%20for%20cds/sport3max.jpg

      They always think they are going toward this.

      http://www.washingtonreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/communism-1.jpg

      They always end up here.  Over and over again.

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yet they keep doing it! I recently read liberalism is caused by a defect in the brain... apparently all libs have this defect... if not for us being a civilized society they would probably all just die off and become extinct due to natural selection. I suppose we are stuck with them now so the next best thing to do is convince them to leave.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Freedom Lady love, freedom to be different and not to be a clone.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            socialism is the opposite of freedom.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Er, no it isn't, not by a long way and not compared with Lady Loves vision of freedom either.

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How can government forcing its wishes on people be freedom?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you think a socialist government would force its wishes on people and why don't you think that right wing governments don't force their wishes on people?

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Grief.   Talking to you is like talking to a website script.   No matter what you say, the same nonsense comes back.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Well, if you will insist on spouting nonsense!

    21. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago

      @John Holden:   The Tea Party federation is just an attempt by people to organize individuals into a group.   

      There's at least 200 such attempts out there.   None of these STARTED the TP movement, and none of them direct it. 

      It has no founder, no leader, no structure.

    22. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago

      @john holden.   You said "What, and be accused of dishonesty again?"

      Only if you are dishonest.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean disagree with you, that's your measure of honesty.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, John, but you proved above, that you care nothing for civility, nor do you respect anyone in any way.   You don't even have enough self respect to be anything but the same twit as Doug. 

          Typical socialist...  arrogant elitists all.   

          The ball is in your court.   You get to define socialism and live with the critique, or run and hide, shouting everyone's ignorant. 

          I said my part, and I can prove, no matter WHAT you define socialism as, that you are either

          a.  dishonest
          b.  wrong about what I say. 

          And that's the problem, see, you tied yourself to an inherently stupid ideology, and you can't defend it, because it's inherently stupid.  So, you're left with tactical critique of the opposition, you can't support your own thoughts on their merits. 

          Sorry, you're going to lose.   No matter what.  Either the people who promote freedom win, or or the world crashes and burns from your ideas, either way, you cannot win.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hang on, the incivility is coming off you in spades. Look at this post alone-stupid ideology, typical socialist, arrogant, elitist. Or doesn't that rate as incivility in your book?

            I have asked and given you ample opportunity to prove my dishonesty but you can't do it can you other than by insisting that you are right and I am wrong but without any further explanation.

            You have decided that I will lose, easy when you blind yourself to every thing but your own narrow view point.
            I don't see how your sort of freedom will set us all free, on the contrary it'll see us all, or nearly all, in chains.
            I'm living in the, not socialist but much closer to it than the US, UK and I already have much more freedom than you do.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And I would never be so arrogant as to come out with an arrogant load of squit as that.

    23. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

      To answer the OP's question....

      The founding fathers were aware that rule by majority might endanger the liberty of the minority, but that is why they created checks and balances.. to assure that rule by the people (democracy) would not be allowed to destroy itself.

      As Jefferson said...

      "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take power from them, but to inform them by education."

      and in the words of James Madison...

      "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."

      Moving up to this century, although not an Americaan or founding father, most know of Churchill's quote...

      "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been"


      As for who is against democracy?...

      "Either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of our modern democracy, or the world will be dominated according to the natural law of force; in the latter case the people of brute force will be victorious."
      Adolf Hitler

      and then there is...

      "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy"
      Ahmadinejad

     
    working