We're Supposed to be a Republic
We're Supposed to be a Republic
I'm sick of the Federal Government, through taxing, taking the ability of State and local government to properly serve. The system now requires local government to go begging to the Feds for money that was generated at the local level. When local government is successful in getting money, they get a small percentage of what was originally collected at the local level because of the Federal Govt's administrative costs. Along with the money comes more Federal control taking away freedom and increasing the local government's cost of doing business. For that privilege local government has to beef up staffs in order to assemble begging documents (grant applications), further depleting local government's ability to function. It's an onerous system that is doomed to fail under its own weight.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1165321 wrote: I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.
As promised: China may be obstacle to Gordon Brown's global G20 economy plan - Telegraph
As promised: China may be obstacle to Gordon Brown's global G20 economy plan - Telegraph
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1165344 wrote: I'm sick of the Federal Government, through taxing, taking he ability of State and local government to properly serve. The system now requires local government to go begging to the Feds for money that was generated at the local level. When local government is successful in getting money, they get a small percentage of what was originally collected at the local level because of the Federal Govt's administrative costs. Along with the money comes more Federal control taking away freedom and increasing the local government's cost of doing business. For that privilege local government has to beef up staffs in order to assemble begging documents (grant applications), further depleting local government's ability to function. It's an onerous system that is doomed to fail under it's own weight.
Just one word comes to mind: corruption.
Just one word comes to mind: corruption.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1165346 wrote: As promised: China may be obstacle to Gordon Brown's global G20 economy plan - Telegraph
And another:
Surprise...the UN is in the picture:-5
UN panel touts new global currency reserve system
And another:
Surprise...the UN is in the picture:-5
UN panel touts new global currency reserve system
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1165355 wrote: And another:
Surprise...the UN is in the picture:-5
UN panel touts new global currency reserve system
I don't know what to make of it really. Non-inflationary too they reckon.
It seems to point to a new worldwide federation of sorts with states that have their own economic systems.
Surprise...the UN is in the picture:-5
UN panel touts new global currency reserve system
I don't know what to make of it really. Non-inflationary too they reckon.
It seems to point to a new worldwide federation of sorts with states that have their own economic systems.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Snowfire;1165234 wrote: I get from the video that it is assumed, that in the type of democracy discussed, it isn't backed up by the rule of law. I'm not sure 30 cowboys chasing a felon and then on mass deciding to hang him, is a good example of democracy in action.
I do however find it interesting, this supposed difference between democracy and a republic.
My stand point is, is that I would like to see much less interference by government in my life. We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves
What I get from the video is that the author is against democracy and would like the political system changed so that the "right" kind of individuals have control. At best he's in favour of oligarchy.
posted by accountable
Pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome for day-to-day use. If every citizen were expected to understand, discuss, and vote on every issue - local, county, regional, national - there wouldn't be time to go to work to earn taxes to pay for anything ... which, come to think of it, wouldn't cost anything since nothing would ever be decided.
Since pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome, we decide instead to democratically elect representatives to democratically make decisions in our stead. We are a state of states (known collectively as the United States) in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote (those being aged 18 and up) and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. We are a republic.
Of course pure democracy only works with small city states tghat's why the earliest democracies devised means to speed things up by electing representatives. You live in a republic (where power resides with the people) and a representative democracy. (where yiou have mechanisms in place that have developed in a peculiarly American way to allow the people to have their say). democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive
The definition in the video of what a republic is is completely and utterly wrong. A republic is where power resides with the people not with a king, or a theocracy or an oligarchy. You will not find a single dictionary anywhere that has a different definition. Why on earth are you accepting the one given in that video. If you forget that power rests with the people you are in deep ****. Get a latin dictionary and look it up. It does NOT mean simply rule by law-although that is usually a feature. Do your own research instead of believing the last presentation you saw. Your founding father as the beneficiaries of a classical education would have been well aware what it meant. Do you not study this kind of stuff at school?
Similarly his assertion that those who talk about the right and left of the political spectrum do not define their terms is a load of rubbish. It's part of our school curriculum I would have thought it was part of the American one a well how can you study communism or fascism without becoming familiar with the terminology? Do you not study politics at school?
posted by me
If you don't have mechanisms in place for the people to have their say you end up with oligarchy-or state corporatism which is what you actually have had in america, and then the people eventually take power back by force if necessary but they do take it back.
You do have such mechanisms in place developed over time in a peculiarly american way. They may need reform but the basic concept is accepted. My understanding is that one of the biggest differences in this election is that a form of proportional representation was used for the first time for the democratic primaries(?) so the eventual candidate reflected the actual voting of of party members rather than the way the apparatchiks wanted it to go. My knowledge of your system is a bit hazy so correct me if I am wrong but I understand that the problem you have is that party managers can control the election of the presidential candidate to easily with the result that many feel there is no point voting. It is that control that resulted in the control of your government by nested interests-something both democratic and republican presidents warned about (roosevelt and eisenhower that is, I assume as an american you are well aware of what I refer to)
If you have a political system that doesn't change or can't change it fails. Yours hasn't failed. Nor can't you design one that is perfect and those who think they can design such a thing are the last people to be given the opportunity to do so. To paraphrase another greek philosopher those who think they are the best to rule are he very ones that are not. This video seems quite clearly made by someone that wants to disenfranchise large sections of your population. Who would be daft enough to be taken in by it?
posted by openmind
Although we were given male suffrage once a parliament was elected, the commoners still did as they were told. Parliament and its affairs was the domain of the wealthier citizens.
These have been challenges to the law as opposed to a challenge to the behaviour of the Government.
You don't know much about British history if you think that, chopping a king's head off made them sit up and take notice. Having the colonies was a good pressure release valve but our establishment have had to watch their step with gradual reform easing off rumblings that would have led to outright revolt again and again. The election in 1947 was a fairly heavy hint that we wouldn't accept going back to he way things were.
posted by clint
I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.
Which particular brand of European socialism? We all do things differently. The assertion is used to get a knee jerk reaction that gets people off talking about what is proposed. It's a ridiculous fear used to prevent people thinking about the issues and preserve the status quo. If you can't tell the difference between left and right you have bugger all chance of understanding socialism.
Our only concern would be if you started lobbing nukes at each other other than that we would adapt and change trading patterns with each other.
posted by clint
Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
Do your military not swear to uphold the constitution rather than serve the government? Why do you assume your own military would open fire on it's own people?
We've always had a small army-there is a famous quote from the Duke of Wellington where he states the british people l would never tolerate a large army unless it was wartime. The last time (I think) british troops were actually used to quell civil disturbance was before ww1 (northern Ireland being a special case) the last time they thought about it was immediately post ww1 though they never had the nerve to actually use them.
It's also the main reason our police are unarmed-the original intent was that they gain the support of the populace people and not be seen as just another means of suppression. Which I'm sure you find interesting but a bit off topic.
I do however find it interesting, this supposed difference between democracy and a republic.
My stand point is, is that I would like to see much less interference by government in my life. We have been shepharded into a nanny state over the last 10 years or so as if we are children unable to make sensible decisions ourselves
What I get from the video is that the author is against democracy and would like the political system changed so that the "right" kind of individuals have control. At best he's in favour of oligarchy.
posted by accountable
Pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome for day-to-day use. If every citizen were expected to understand, discuss, and vote on every issue - local, county, regional, national - there wouldn't be time to go to work to earn taxes to pay for anything ... which, come to think of it, wouldn't cost anything since nothing would ever be decided.
Since pure democracy is too slow and cumbersome, we decide instead to democratically elect representatives to democratically make decisions in our stead. We are a state of states (known collectively as the United States) in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote (those being aged 18 and up) and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. We are a republic.
Of course pure democracy only works with small city states tghat's why the earliest democracies devised means to speed things up by electing representatives. You live in a republic (where power resides with the people) and a representative democracy. (where yiou have mechanisms in place that have developed in a peculiarly American way to allow the people to have their say). democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive
The definition in the video of what a republic is is completely and utterly wrong. A republic is where power resides with the people not with a king, or a theocracy or an oligarchy. You will not find a single dictionary anywhere that has a different definition. Why on earth are you accepting the one given in that video. If you forget that power rests with the people you are in deep ****. Get a latin dictionary and look it up. It does NOT mean simply rule by law-although that is usually a feature. Do your own research instead of believing the last presentation you saw. Your founding father as the beneficiaries of a classical education would have been well aware what it meant. Do you not study this kind of stuff at school?
Similarly his assertion that those who talk about the right and left of the political spectrum do not define their terms is a load of rubbish. It's part of our school curriculum I would have thought it was part of the American one a well how can you study communism or fascism without becoming familiar with the terminology? Do you not study politics at school?
posted by me
If you don't have mechanisms in place for the people to have their say you end up with oligarchy-or state corporatism which is what you actually have had in america, and then the people eventually take power back by force if necessary but they do take it back.
You do have such mechanisms in place developed over time in a peculiarly american way. They may need reform but the basic concept is accepted. My understanding is that one of the biggest differences in this election is that a form of proportional representation was used for the first time for the democratic primaries(?) so the eventual candidate reflected the actual voting of of party members rather than the way the apparatchiks wanted it to go. My knowledge of your system is a bit hazy so correct me if I am wrong but I understand that the problem you have is that party managers can control the election of the presidential candidate to easily with the result that many feel there is no point voting. It is that control that resulted in the control of your government by nested interests-something both democratic and republican presidents warned about (roosevelt and eisenhower that is, I assume as an american you are well aware of what I refer to)
If you have a political system that doesn't change or can't change it fails. Yours hasn't failed. Nor can't you design one that is perfect and those who think they can design such a thing are the last people to be given the opportunity to do so. To paraphrase another greek philosopher those who think they are the best to rule are he very ones that are not. This video seems quite clearly made by someone that wants to disenfranchise large sections of your population. Who would be daft enough to be taken in by it?
posted by openmind
Although we were given male suffrage once a parliament was elected, the commoners still did as they were told. Parliament and its affairs was the domain of the wealthier citizens.
These have been challenges to the law as opposed to a challenge to the behaviour of the Government.
You don't know much about British history if you think that, chopping a king's head off made them sit up and take notice. Having the colonies was a good pressure release valve but our establishment have had to watch their step with gradual reform easing off rumblings that would have led to outright revolt again and again. The election in 1947 was a fairly heavy hint that we wouldn't accept going back to he way things were.
posted by clint
I think that if anything that drastic happens the world will be part of it. It will be, at least in part, about globalism. As Accountable points out we are being purchased with our own money to adopt a European style Socialism and this week our "leaders" followed China and Russia to say they would consider a global currency.
Which particular brand of European socialism? We all do things differently. The assertion is used to get a knee jerk reaction that gets people off talking about what is proposed. It's a ridiculous fear used to prevent people thinking about the issues and preserve the status quo. If you can't tell the difference between left and right you have bugger all chance of understanding socialism.
Our only concern would be if you started lobbing nukes at each other other than that we would adapt and change trading patterns with each other.
posted by clint
Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
Do your military not swear to uphold the constitution rather than serve the government? Why do you assume your own military would open fire on it's own people?
We've always had a small army-there is a famous quote from the Duke of Wellington where he states the british people l would never tolerate a large army unless it was wartime. The last time (I think) british troops were actually used to quell civil disturbance was before ww1 (northern Ireland being a special case) the last time they thought about it was immediately post ww1 though they never had the nerve to actually use them.
It's also the main reason our police are unarmed-the original intent was that they gain the support of the populace people and not be seen as just another means of suppression. Which I'm sure you find interesting but a bit off topic.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
GMC, Snowfire isn't an American. I also think you misunderstood what I wrote.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1165520 wrote: What I get from the video is that the author is against democracy and would like the political system changed so that the "right" kind of individuals have control. At best he's in favour of oligarchy.Then you need to go back and listen again. Just the last ten seconds will do.
The video was made, I believe, to warn Americans about the danger of giving government too much power. It seems to be a trend here now to cry out for the gov't to take over every unpleasant task, and the easier our lives become, the more tasks we define as unpleasant. We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
The video was made, I believe, to warn Americans about the danger of giving government too much power. It seems to be a trend here now to cry out for the gov't to take over every unpleasant task, and the easier our lives become, the more tasks we define as unpleasant. We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1165521 wrote: GMC, Snowfire isn't an American. I also think you misunderstood what I wrote.
I know he/she is not an American. Not being cheeky but the british flag I thought was quite a good clue as to the nationality. Unless of course he's an embarrassed american trying to gain credibility:yh_rotfl
I was adding my tuppence worth to the comment made. The maker of the video is (IMO) portraying democracy as synonymous with mob rule. The portrayal of what a republic is is also spurious.
If I misunderstood what you wrote I apologise but British history is one long story of the curbing of the power of the king and the eventual emergence of parliamentary democracy. It wasn't given the people reached up and squeezed the testicles of those in power till they gave in. The establishment reformed just enough to keep the lid from blowing off the pressure cooker of discontent. It's a mistake to think our history is a peaceful one.
posted by accountable
Then you need to go back and listen again. Just the last ten seconds will do.
The video was made, I believe, to warn Americans about the danger of giving government too much power. It seems to be a trend here now to cry out for the gov't to take over every unpleasant task, and the easier our lives become, the more tasks we define as unpleasant. We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
I have actually watched the video. Your founding fathers put in place things like the electoral colleges quite deliberately to counter the danger of a populist candidate. The video equates democracy with mob rule which is a simplistic way of looking at things beloved by those who prefer not to have it. Typically on the right of the political spectrum (the spectrum accepted by most of the worl that is not the perversion of the video) It also portrays a perverted view of what a republic is. It means rule by the people not rule by law-although that is usually a feature of a republic-an agreed body of laws to settle disputes. If you remember they were rejecting rule by a monarch and designing an alternative-the roman republic was obviously an influence since it was created specifically to replace the kings they had just kicked out. Good grief there is even a statue of Washington as an American Cincinnatus. Rome started life as a greek colony there was obvious influence in the way rome set about things as well.
Go and look at the debates they had about who should be eligible to vote. ( I always assumed it would be part of your high school curriculum) They created a republic yes, they also created one ruled by an oligarchy but it has changed over time to a democratic republic with universal suffrage finally becoming the norm in the 1960's.
As I asked earlier had you been a soldier in the American army at the time , how would you have felt about being told you couldn't be trusted to vote for who governed you because you didn't own property? (it's a long time since I looked at the debates myself actually, but I have good excuse:D)
We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
You already have it. Or if you prefer you have state corporatism.
What has happened imo and speaking as an outsider is that democracy has reasserted itself to curb the power of the vested interests that have got you in to the mess you are currently in. Your vested interests are squealing like stuck pigs and now it seems trying to convince you democracy is a bad idea.
What american is going to give up their right to vote? Are you, is Clint? Who gets to decide who votes, who has a say in government. The pillock that made this video?
You have given your government too much power, however, you have the means in place to curb it-the ballot box and democratic elections. find your own solutions and stop being scared by stories of back door European style socialism, it's the least of your worries and a massive red herring-you've had back door fascism and you don't seem to recognise it for what it is. You do need to be wary of big government-of all types not just of a socialistic nature. Big government is not just a feature of the left it;'s also a feature of the right.
The video, to be blunt is imo a load of bollocks and made by someone who either doesn't know what he is talking about or is intent on pushing a right wing political agenda and I mean right wing in the generally accepted sense being against the rule of the people and wanting to curb the power of then people.
Actually at the moment I think your democracy is in better nick than ours-bout time we exerted ourselves as well. More than half of all jobs in the UK are in the public sector, the thing is we don't have the industrial base to sustain it any more. You think you have problems we have gordon brown and a bunch of muppets as the alternative. I'm thinking of changing my moniker to depressed in scotland :-1
I know he/she is not an American. Not being cheeky but the british flag I thought was quite a good clue as to the nationality. Unless of course he's an embarrassed american trying to gain credibility:yh_rotfl
I was adding my tuppence worth to the comment made. The maker of the video is (IMO) portraying democracy as synonymous with mob rule. The portrayal of what a republic is is also spurious.
If I misunderstood what you wrote I apologise but British history is one long story of the curbing of the power of the king and the eventual emergence of parliamentary democracy. It wasn't given the people reached up and squeezed the testicles of those in power till they gave in. The establishment reformed just enough to keep the lid from blowing off the pressure cooker of discontent. It's a mistake to think our history is a peaceful one.
posted by accountable
Then you need to go back and listen again. Just the last ten seconds will do.
The video was made, I believe, to warn Americans about the danger of giving government too much power. It seems to be a trend here now to cry out for the gov't to take over every unpleasant task, and the easier our lives become, the more tasks we define as unpleasant. We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
I have actually watched the video. Your founding fathers put in place things like the electoral colleges quite deliberately to counter the danger of a populist candidate. The video equates democracy with mob rule which is a simplistic way of looking at things beloved by those who prefer not to have it. Typically on the right of the political spectrum (the spectrum accepted by most of the worl that is not the perversion of the video) It also portrays a perverted view of what a republic is. It means rule by the people not rule by law-although that is usually a feature of a republic-an agreed body of laws to settle disputes. If you remember they were rejecting rule by a monarch and designing an alternative-the roman republic was obviously an influence since it was created specifically to replace the kings they had just kicked out. Good grief there is even a statue of Washington as an American Cincinnatus. Rome started life as a greek colony there was obvious influence in the way rome set about things as well.
Go and look at the debates they had about who should be eligible to vote. ( I always assumed it would be part of your high school curriculum) They created a republic yes, they also created one ruled by an oligarchy but it has changed over time to a democratic republic with universal suffrage finally becoming the norm in the 1960's.
As I asked earlier had you been a soldier in the American army at the time , how would you have felt about being told you couldn't be trusted to vote for who governed you because you didn't own property? (it's a long time since I looked at the debates myself actually, but I have good excuse:D)
We are headed for oligarchy, and the authors are trying to open eyes.
You already have it. Or if you prefer you have state corporatism.
What has happened imo and speaking as an outsider is that democracy has reasserted itself to curb the power of the vested interests that have got you in to the mess you are currently in. Your vested interests are squealing like stuck pigs and now it seems trying to convince you democracy is a bad idea.
What american is going to give up their right to vote? Are you, is Clint? Who gets to decide who votes, who has a say in government. The pillock that made this video?
You have given your government too much power, however, you have the means in place to curb it-the ballot box and democratic elections. find your own solutions and stop being scared by stories of back door European style socialism, it's the least of your worries and a massive red herring-you've had back door fascism and you don't seem to recognise it for what it is. You do need to be wary of big government-of all types not just of a socialistic nature. Big government is not just a feature of the left it;'s also a feature of the right.
The video, to be blunt is imo a load of bollocks and made by someone who either doesn't know what he is talking about or is intent on pushing a right wing political agenda and I mean right wing in the generally accepted sense being against the rule of the people and wanting to curb the power of then people.
Actually at the moment I think your democracy is in better nick than ours-bout time we exerted ourselves as well. More than half of all jobs in the UK are in the public sector, the thing is we don't have the industrial base to sustain it any more. You think you have problems we have gordon brown and a bunch of muppets as the alternative. I'm thinking of changing my moniker to depressed in scotland :-1
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1165680 wrote: I know he/she is not an American. Not being cheeky but the british flag I thought was quite a good clue as to the nationality. Unless of course he's an embarrassed american trying to gain credibility:yh_rotfl
I was adding my tuppence worth to the comment made. The maker of the video is (IMO) portraying democracy as synonymous with mob rule. The portrayal of what a republic is is also spurious.
If I misunderstood what you wrote I apologise but British history is one long story of the curbing of the power of the king and the eventual emergence of parliamentary democracy. It wasn't given the people reached up and squeezed the testicles of those in power till they gave in. The establishment reformed just enough to keep the lid from blowing off the pressure cooker of discontent. It's a mistake to think our history is a peaceful one.
The key to what I wrote is the word 'commoners', the average joe that turned the spit, etc. They might grumble but only took action when rallied. It wasn't until the 15th century that they were even allowed to leave their manor. Only those who could back up their words with fighting power, i.e. the wealthy or landed folk, initiated action against the monarch. The 'commoners' did as they were told even if this included a campaign to rally them to the cause. That's not to say they didn't have a choice as they could always decide to support the other side.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
I was adding my tuppence worth to the comment made. The maker of the video is (IMO) portraying democracy as synonymous with mob rule. The portrayal of what a republic is is also spurious.
If I misunderstood what you wrote I apologise but British history is one long story of the curbing of the power of the king and the eventual emergence of parliamentary democracy. It wasn't given the people reached up and squeezed the testicles of those in power till they gave in. The establishment reformed just enough to keep the lid from blowing off the pressure cooker of discontent. It's a mistake to think our history is a peaceful one.
The key to what I wrote is the word 'commoners', the average joe that turned the spit, etc. They might grumble but only took action when rallied. It wasn't until the 15th century that they were even allowed to leave their manor. Only those who could back up their words with fighting power, i.e. the wealthy or landed folk, initiated action against the monarch. The 'commoners' did as they were told even if this included a campaign to rally them to the cause. That's not to say they didn't have a choice as they could always decide to support the other side.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1165737 wrote: The key to what I wrote is the word 'commoners', the average joe that turned the spit, etc. They might grumble but only took action when rallied. It wasn't until the 15th century that they were even allowed to leave their manor. Only those who could back up their words with fighting power, i.e. the wealthy or landed folk, initiated action against the monarch. The 'commoners' did as they were told even if this included a campaign to rally them to the cause. That's not to say they didn't have a choice as they could always decide to support the other side.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
Can't say i agree with you. The "commoners" as you put it get on with their lives-which is all most people want to be able to do- until they get fed up and decide to take action. A leader might emerge but this idea you need a great man to get things moving and nothing happens until one shows up is just too simple an explanation. He-or she come to that -needs to have support from enough people to make a difference, that is people have to make a decision for themselves what they are going to do and in the past whether they would pick up arms to fight. They did time after time. We have a house of commons and it wasn't because the king was feeling generous. In a way it's an elitist point of view of things that people need to be led to take action by those most suited to lead them. In reality people make up their own minds eventually.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
Can't say i agree with you. The "commoners" as you put it get on with their lives-which is all most people want to be able to do- until they get fed up and decide to take action. A leader might emerge but this idea you need a great man to get things moving and nothing happens until one shows up is just too simple an explanation. He-or she come to that -needs to have support from enough people to make a difference, that is people have to make a decision for themselves what they are going to do and in the past whether they would pick up arms to fight. They did time after time. We have a house of commons and it wasn't because the king was feeling generous. In a way it's an elitist point of view of things that people need to be led to take action by those most suited to lead them. In reality people make up their own minds eventually.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1165285 wrote: These have been challenges to the law as opposed to a challenge to the behaviour of the Government.
Don't see that one - the general strike and the miner's strike, at the very least, have been direct opposition to the government's actions.
Don't see that one - the general strike and the miner's strike, at the very least, have been direct opposition to the government's actions.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1165309 wrote: Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
And yet the prospect of the people rising up in armed insurrection against this military is held up as the prime reason for allowing the people to carry whatever weapons take their fancy and I'm taken to task when I point out that the people couldn't get the best of the armed forces if they remain loyal to the government.
And yet the prospect of the people rising up in armed insurrection against this military is held up as the prime reason for allowing the people to carry whatever weapons take their fancy and I'm taken to task when I point out that the people couldn't get the best of the armed forces if they remain loyal to the government.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1165737 wrote: The key to what I wrote is the word 'commoners', the average joe that turned the spit, etc. They might grumble but only took action when rallied. It wasn't until the 15th century that they were even allowed to leave their manor. Only those who could back up their words with fighting power, i.e. the wealthy or landed folk, initiated action against the monarch. The 'commoners' did as they were told even if this included a campaign to rally them to the cause. That's not to say they didn't have a choice as they could always decide to support the other side.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
Wat Tyler anyone? The Peasant's Revolt was organised by the Peasants for the Peasants - not by the wealthy using the Peasants to do their fighting for them.
My point was that this mindset still exists today among the 'commoners'. They grumble and do nothing, waiting to be rallied or told what to do.
Wat Tyler anyone? The Peasant's Revolt was organised by the Peasants for the Peasants - not by the wealthy using the Peasants to do their fighting for them.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1165520 wrote:
posted by clint
Which particular brand of European socialism? We all do things differently. The assertion is used to get a knee jerk reaction that gets people off talking about what is proposed. It's a ridiculous fear used to prevent people thinking about the issues and preserve the status quo. If you can't tell the difference between left and right you have bugger all chance of understanding socialism.
Our only concern would be if you started lobbing nukes at each other other than that we would adapt and change trading patterns with each other.
posted by clint
Do your military not swear to uphold the constitution rather than serve the government? Why do you assume your own military would open fire on it's own people?
Euopean Socialism is simply the idea that the government can solve all of the problems. Until today there was a difference between our free market system and one controlled by government. After today I will not point my finger at anyone else's socialism. Like much of Europe we now have socialists on the left and socialists on the right. The difference here is the ones on the right lost the last election.
Our military would not turn on its people unless they were convenced the people were destroying the country and they were constitutionally bound to do so. They are honorable people who would have to believe they were doing the honorable thing. There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truley believed they were doing the right thing.
posted by clint
Which particular brand of European socialism? We all do things differently. The assertion is used to get a knee jerk reaction that gets people off talking about what is proposed. It's a ridiculous fear used to prevent people thinking about the issues and preserve the status quo. If you can't tell the difference between left and right you have bugger all chance of understanding socialism.
Our only concern would be if you started lobbing nukes at each other other than that we would adapt and change trading patterns with each other.
posted by clint
Do your military not swear to uphold the constitution rather than serve the government? Why do you assume your own military would open fire on it's own people?
Euopean Socialism is simply the idea that the government can solve all of the problems. Until today there was a difference between our free market system and one controlled by government. After today I will not point my finger at anyone else's socialism. Like much of Europe we now have socialists on the left and socialists on the right. The difference here is the ones on the right lost the last election.
Our military would not turn on its people unless they were convenced the people were destroying the country and they were constitutionally bound to do so. They are honorable people who would have to believe they were doing the honorable thing. There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truley believed they were doing the right thing.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1166579 wrote: Euopean Socialism is simply the idea that the government can solve all of the problems. Until today there was a difference between our free market system and one controlled by government. After today I will not point my finger at anyone else's socialism. Like much of Europe we now have socialists on the left and socialists on the right. The difference here is the ones on the right lost the last election.
Our military would not turn on its people unless they were convenced the people were destroying the country and they were constitutionally bound to do so. They are honorable people who would have to believe they were doing the honorable thing. There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truley believed they were doing the right thing.
European socialism is just not that simple or monolithic. There is a distinct difference in what we think are government responsibilities between us and the united states and I would agree a tendency of socialist governments to want to interfere and control everything (our current one for instance is pretty bad) but it's not something europeans tend to out up with before getting annoyed and kicking them out. But the notion that we think the government can solve everything is an american perception rather than the reality. Political debate in europe is alive and well and kicking furiously. The notion that we all standing around wait for govt handouts and to be told what to do is ludicrous. Though things do get a bit silly sometimes
We all also have free market economies-that is in fact a European idea not an american one. Even alan greenspan came to europe to pay homage to the man credited with it's conception-although I suspect the great man was birling in his grave at the sight of greenspan and gordon brown metaphorically holding hands and claiming to be his inheritors.
There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truly believed they were doing the right thing
Indeed there were and even more that went to war to stop them-mind you the Americans that did so lost their citizenship for enlisting in foreign armies. I wouldn't be so smug as there are plenty of examples of violent racism and attempted genocide in your own history all carried out by people who thought they were doing the right thing.
posted by Clint
Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
You do seem to suggest that you fear the military could be induced to open fire on it's own people and used to actively suppress dissent. Perhaps with cause
Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I remember watching this and being amazed-I thought it was only third world dictatorships and places like south africa where armed troops were used against unarmed demonstrators. Although I can't imagine something like this happening in america now. It does seem the troops thought people should not demonstrate against their government and those who did so were traitors, or worse-hippies. Perhaps the events helped make sure it wouldn't happen again.
So in a republic where it is the rule of law that prevails who gets to make the laws? That's always going to be the fundamental question. Without democracy and the means for people to change things you are going to get constant civil unrest if not outright civil war.
Why do so many americans see the future in such apocalyptic terms? Who is this government you are frightened of? Your democratic republic seems to be functioning well.
Our military would not turn on its people unless they were convenced the people were destroying the country and they were constitutionally bound to do so. They are honorable people who would have to believe they were doing the honorable thing. There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truley believed they were doing the right thing.
European socialism is just not that simple or monolithic. There is a distinct difference in what we think are government responsibilities between us and the united states and I would agree a tendency of socialist governments to want to interfere and control everything (our current one for instance is pretty bad) but it's not something europeans tend to out up with before getting annoyed and kicking them out. But the notion that we think the government can solve everything is an american perception rather than the reality. Political debate in europe is alive and well and kicking furiously. The notion that we all standing around wait for govt handouts and to be told what to do is ludicrous. Though things do get a bit silly sometimes
We all also have free market economies-that is in fact a European idea not an american one. Even alan greenspan came to europe to pay homage to the man credited with it's conception-although I suspect the great man was birling in his grave at the sight of greenspan and gordon brown metaphorically holding hands and claiming to be his inheritors.
There were those in Europe who once operated ovens and truly believed they were doing the right thing
Indeed there were and even more that went to war to stop them-mind you the Americans that did so lost their citizenship for enlisting in foreign armies. I wouldn't be so smug as there are plenty of examples of violent racism and attempted genocide in your own history all carried out by people who thought they were doing the right thing.
posted by Clint
Protesting and civil disobedience have been useful in the past but I suppose there is a point at which we would just be overpowered. We have a military the people probably couldn't get the best of. As long as the government remained in control of the military the people would be in a pickle.
You do seem to suggest that you fear the military could be induced to open fire on it's own people and used to actively suppress dissent. Perhaps with cause
Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I remember watching this and being amazed-I thought it was only third world dictatorships and places like south africa where armed troops were used against unarmed demonstrators. Although I can't imagine something like this happening in america now. It does seem the troops thought people should not demonstrate against their government and those who did so were traitors, or worse-hippies. Perhaps the events helped make sure it wouldn't happen again.
So in a republic where it is the rule of law that prevails who gets to make the laws? That's always going to be the fundamental question. Without democracy and the means for people to change things you are going to get constant civil unrest if not outright civil war.
Why do so many americans see the future in such apocalyptic terms? Who is this government you are frightened of? Your democratic republic seems to be functioning well.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Clint;1166579 wrote: Like much of Europe we now have socialists on the left and socialists on the right. The difference here is the ones on the right lost the last election.
AMEN! :yh_clap
AMEN! :yh_clap
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1166637 wrote: AMEN! :yh_clap
You've really been taken in by that video haven't you? You do realise that right wing socialism (since you insist on refusing to appreciate that socialism is not some strange global conspiracy dreamed up in europe) corporate socialism, fascism, nazism was what world war two was about don't you? It has been largely defeated in europe though not entirely. Your home grown fascists were not defeated-they morphed and got control in other ways but they are still around. You have an oligarchy now, it's not something that might happen irt already has. How come you don't see it?
Which would you rather have a republic where the people have the power run on a democratic basis or a fascist one where corporations and interest groups decide who gets elected. The author of this video is quite clearly not in favour of democracy. Neither were your founding fathers and you need to ask your self why? They also believed slavery was acceptable and that women wee not fit to vote. so how come you aren't calling for slavery to be brought back if you really believe the founding fathers had it so right?
You've really been taken in by that video haven't you? You do realise that right wing socialism (since you insist on refusing to appreciate that socialism is not some strange global conspiracy dreamed up in europe) corporate socialism, fascism, nazism was what world war two was about don't you? It has been largely defeated in europe though not entirely. Your home grown fascists were not defeated-they morphed and got control in other ways but they are still around. You have an oligarchy now, it's not something that might happen irt already has. How come you don't see it?
Which would you rather have a republic where the people have the power run on a democratic basis or a fascist one where corporations and interest groups decide who gets elected. The author of this video is quite clearly not in favour of democracy. Neither were your founding fathers and you need to ask your self why? They also believed slavery was acceptable and that women wee not fit to vote. so how come you aren't calling for slavery to be brought back if you really believe the founding fathers had it so right?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
It's always really tough to get you to see it from this side. He's not warning against democracy; he's warning against oligarchy. If you're right, it doesn't matter because you're over there. If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter because he's obviously not delivering his message properly.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1167628 wrote: It's always really tough to get you to see it from this side. He's not warning against democracy; he's warning against oligarchy. If you're right, it doesn't matter because you're over there. If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter because he's obviously not delivering his message properly.
A Republic is a state where supreme power is held by the people-it doesn't mean simply rule by law although law is usually a feature of it. Quite simply that part of the video is flat out wrong. Rome fought to get rid of it's kings and having done so wanted to make no king could claim the right to rule. Power to the people and all that.
Rome went from being a democracy when the powerful were able to disenfranchise the people and take power in to their own hands and used it to seize more land and power and wealth. The enormous supply of slaves made it economically viable to run big estates on slave labour The agrarian economy fell apart as all free citizens forced off their lands made for the cities where there was little industrial activity to absorb the work force. They used the law to do it. Caesar, if you recall, originally wanted to restore the power to the people he was seen as populist and dangerous and got assassinated for it. He obviously had the urge o rule himself anyway. The rest as they say is history.
The bread and circuses was as much to stop them lynching their leaders as anything else.
There is always a tendency towards oligarchy in any political system the purpose of law is to lay down agreed guidelines to curb the powerful and protect the rights of others. The law can also be used to take away the rights of others, the roman oligarchs did it by the simple expedient of sequestering land effectively disenfranchising those they possessed-there was a property qualification to vote, no land no money for lawyer no voice in the senate. Interestingly enough women could own property under the republic but gradually lost that right under the oligarchs as they realised widows were vulnerable and not in a position to stop their rights being taken away.
He equates democracy with mob rule. A democracy is a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.
Your founding farther set up an oligarchy-when they were deciding who should be able to vote it was based on property ownership the logic being that only those who had shown themselves to be responsible should have a say in a government they were funding through their property taxers and taxes on trade-no one had thought of income tax. They set up the senate to balance the power of congress. They set up the electoral colleges as a way of stopping a populist candidate getting in-or put it another way so they could thwart the wishes of what they saw as the mob. That mob was standing with a musket ready to fight for freedom, wonder how they felt about being told they should have no say in government? (seriously, it's something i've never looked in to-there's so much more British history to look at:sneaky:)
Even now I have seen some posters here seriously suggesting that those who pay the most taxes should have more votes because of their status. That is not democracy and to bring it about you would have to use the law to disenfranchise most of the population. Are you ready to accept someone's vote counting for more than yours at the ballot box? How do you think a soldier in iraq would feel about being told paris hilton had more votes then them-or a banker had more come to that?
Rule by law alone does not protect your freedom. Law in a republic is a tool not some fantastic panacea for all ills in society. Having a system where the voice of ordinary people has to be listened to in drafting those rules and/or can change unjust laws is still one of the best way to do it. The video is using the same arguments heard time after time to justify curtailing the right of people to have a say on who governs them. If not the people who else should be deciding what should be law and what should not? Power lies with those who get to write the law and ultimately with those who give it to them.
You might not like it and it's far from perfect but democracy is still the best and elected representatives the easiest way to do it.
The American system is actually pretty good although perhaps it's been hijacked by an oligarchy in the recent past-now it looks like the people are making their voices heard it's quite interesting to watch.
A Republic is a state where supreme power is held by the people-it doesn't mean simply rule by law although law is usually a feature of it. Quite simply that part of the video is flat out wrong. Rome fought to get rid of it's kings and having done so wanted to make no king could claim the right to rule. Power to the people and all that.
Rome went from being a democracy when the powerful were able to disenfranchise the people and take power in to their own hands and used it to seize more land and power and wealth. The enormous supply of slaves made it economically viable to run big estates on slave labour The agrarian economy fell apart as all free citizens forced off their lands made for the cities where there was little industrial activity to absorb the work force. They used the law to do it. Caesar, if you recall, originally wanted to restore the power to the people he was seen as populist and dangerous and got assassinated for it. He obviously had the urge o rule himself anyway. The rest as they say is history.
The bread and circuses was as much to stop them lynching their leaders as anything else.
There is always a tendency towards oligarchy in any political system the purpose of law is to lay down agreed guidelines to curb the powerful and protect the rights of others. The law can also be used to take away the rights of others, the roman oligarchs did it by the simple expedient of sequestering land effectively disenfranchising those they possessed-there was a property qualification to vote, no land no money for lawyer no voice in the senate. Interestingly enough women could own property under the republic but gradually lost that right under the oligarchs as they realised widows were vulnerable and not in a position to stop their rights being taken away.
He equates democracy with mob rule. A democracy is a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.
Your founding farther set up an oligarchy-when they were deciding who should be able to vote it was based on property ownership the logic being that only those who had shown themselves to be responsible should have a say in a government they were funding through their property taxers and taxes on trade-no one had thought of income tax. They set up the senate to balance the power of congress. They set up the electoral colleges as a way of stopping a populist candidate getting in-or put it another way so they could thwart the wishes of what they saw as the mob. That mob was standing with a musket ready to fight for freedom, wonder how they felt about being told they should have no say in government? (seriously, it's something i've never looked in to-there's so much more British history to look at:sneaky:)
Even now I have seen some posters here seriously suggesting that those who pay the most taxes should have more votes because of their status. That is not democracy and to bring it about you would have to use the law to disenfranchise most of the population. Are you ready to accept someone's vote counting for more than yours at the ballot box? How do you think a soldier in iraq would feel about being told paris hilton had more votes then them-or a banker had more come to that?
Rule by law alone does not protect your freedom. Law in a republic is a tool not some fantastic panacea for all ills in society. Having a system where the voice of ordinary people has to be listened to in drafting those rules and/or can change unjust laws is still one of the best way to do it. The video is using the same arguments heard time after time to justify curtailing the right of people to have a say on who governs them. If not the people who else should be deciding what should be law and what should not? Power lies with those who get to write the law and ultimately with those who give it to them.
You might not like it and it's far from perfect but democracy is still the best and elected representatives the easiest way to do it.
The American system is actually pretty good although perhaps it's been hijacked by an oligarchy in the recent past-now it looks like the people are making their voices heard it's quite interesting to watch.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1167814 wrote: You might not like it and it's far from perfect but democracy is still the best and elected representatives the easiest way to do it.
:wah:
Dude, crawl out of your own head and look around.
I'm letting this thread go, but feel free to keep writing. Someone's likely reading and learning.
:wah:
Dude, crawl out of your own head and look around.
I'm letting this thread go, but feel free to keep writing. Someone's likely reading and learning.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Someone's likely reading and learning.
:) Yep. Most interesting thread. Thank you all.
:) Yep. Most interesting thread. Thank you all.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1167819 wrote: :wah:
Dude, crawl out of your own head and look around.
I'm letting this thread go, but feel free to keep writing. Someone's likely reading and learning.
Fair enough. The dispute is about who gets to right the law and impose it. I'm afraid I'm always going to be on the side of democracy and individual freedom-power should be in the hands of the people and every now and then you need to squeeze the testicles of those who would claim it for themselves and re-arrange the chairs in the offices of power
Dude, crawl out of your own head and look around.
I'm letting this thread go, but feel free to keep writing. Someone's likely reading and learning.
Fair enough. The dispute is about who gets to right the law and impose it. I'm afraid I'm always going to be on the side of democracy and individual freedom-power should be in the hands of the people and every now and then you need to squeeze the testicles of those who would claim it for themselves and re-arrange the chairs in the offices of power
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
And I have pointed out to you probably a dozen times or more that we agree ... but don't let that deter you from taking me to task! :wah:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
"Squeezing the testicles of those who would claim it for themselves"
I knew there was a role for me in the political process.
Squeezing testicles I can do
I knew there was a role for me in the political process.
Squeezing testicles I can do
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1167846 wrote: And I have pointed out to you probably a dozen times or more that we agree ... but don't let that deter you from taking me to task! :wah:
I think you're right we do basically agree. we just use the words differently. peoples divided by a common language and all that.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power.
His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.
came across this
Fascism Anyone?
While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now.
If you wonder why europeand have been loathe to get involved in iraq and Afghanistan that is one of the reason. at least imo-course I could be talking a load of bollocks.
Fascism Anyone?
No doubt the authors are on the american equivalent of the loony left.
The video maker is right wing imo. As it happens I think your political system has exerted itself and looks like finally stopping the drift to the right. The right always invariably stuff it up and ruin the economy-greed gets in the way of common sense and anyone objecting dismissed as not knowing what they are talking about. Strong leadership is all very well unless the strong leader is a complete ********.
Your liberal democracy looks alive and kicking. Your right wing are squealing like stuck pigs. Our political system is a shambles just now. God it's depressing having gordon brown as prime minister. he's a moron
I think you're right we do basically agree. we just use the words differently. peoples divided by a common language and all that.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power.
His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.
came across this
Fascism Anyone?
While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now.
If you wonder why europeand have been loathe to get involved in iraq and Afghanistan that is one of the reason. at least imo-course I could be talking a load of bollocks.
Fascism Anyone?
No doubt the authors are on the american equivalent of the loony left.
The video maker is right wing imo. As it happens I think your political system has exerted itself and looks like finally stopping the drift to the right. The right always invariably stuff it up and ruin the economy-greed gets in the way of common sense and anyone objecting dismissed as not knowing what they are talking about. Strong leadership is all very well unless the strong leader is a complete ********.
Your liberal democracy looks alive and kicking. Your right wing are squealing like stuck pigs. Our political system is a shambles just now. God it's depressing having gordon brown as prime minister. he's a moron
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1168425 wrote: I think you're right we do basically agree. we just use the words differently. peoples divided by a common language and all that.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power. I think he's trying to wake up the simplistic average guy over here, who forgets that the guys in Washington are employees answerable to him (average guy). Much more basic approach for people who have less political knowledge. Yeh, he oversimplifies. I wrote it off as him considering his audience.
gmc;1168425 wrote: His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.I didn't like that part either, but when such universal directions are already loaded with extra definitions - up good, down bad, etc - He had to present it visually somehow. But you're right, he shouldn't have tried to change the definitions.
Gotta run. Can't address the rest until later.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power. I think he's trying to wake up the simplistic average guy over here, who forgets that the guys in Washington are employees answerable to him (average guy). Much more basic approach for people who have less political knowledge. Yeh, he oversimplifies. I wrote it off as him considering his audience.
gmc;1168425 wrote: His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.I didn't like that part either, but when such universal directions are already loaded with extra definitions - up good, down bad, etc - He had to present it visually somehow. But you're right, he shouldn't have tried to change the definitions.
Gotta run. Can't address the rest until later.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
What Does The Flag Mean ?
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169338 wrote: What Does The Flag Mean ?
What Flag?
What Flag?
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Lon;1169413 wrote: What Flag?
Oh dear. Don't you even know what your flag is. Oh dear.
Oh dear. Don't you even know what your flag is. Oh dear.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1169417 wrote: Oh dear. Don't you even know what your flag is. Oh dear.
Good one :wah::wah:
Good one :wah::wah:
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Lon;1169413 wrote: What Flag?
How your grand Daughter doing .
How your grand Daughter doing .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1169417 wrote: Oh dear. Don't you even know what your flag is. Oh dear.
The question did not ask what or who's flag.
The question did not ask what or who's flag.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169431 wrote: How your grand Daughter doing .
:wah: I don't have a granddaughter yet. My daughter's a bit too young for that.
But, for what it's worth, the last time I saw her she was doing fine. I'll be seeing her tomorrow.:-6
:wah: I don't have a granddaughter yet. My daughter's a bit too young for that.
But, for what it's worth, the last time I saw her she was doing fine. I'll be seeing her tomorrow.:-6
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Lon;1169462 wrote: The question did not ask what or who's flag.
No, you're quite right.
I'm not looking to put anyone's flag down.
No, you're quite right.
I'm not looking to put anyone's flag down.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
OpenMind;1169470 wrote: :wah: I don't have a granddaughter yet. My daughter's a bit too young for that.
But, for what it's worth, the last time I saw her she was doing fine. I'll be seeing her tomorrow.:-6
I Wasn't Asking About Your Grand Daughter
. Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .
But, for what it's worth, the last time I saw her she was doing fine. I'll be seeing her tomorrow.:-6
I Wasn't Asking About Your Grand Daughter
. Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169511 wrote: I Wasn't Asking About Your Grand Daughter . Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .
Sorry. :-6
. Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .Sorry. :-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1168425 wrote: I think you're right we do basically agree. we just use the words differently. peoples divided by a common language and all that.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power.
His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.
came across this
Fascism Anyone?
While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now.
If you wonder why europeand have been loathe to get involved in iraq and Afghanistan that is one of the reason. at least imo-course I could be talking a load of bollocks.
Fascism Anyone?
No doubt the authors are on the american equivalent of the loony left.
The video maker is right wing imo. As it happens I think your political system has exerted itself and looks like finally stopping the drift to the right. The right always invariably stuff it up and ruin the economy-greed gets in the way of common sense and anyone objecting dismissed as not knowing what they are talking about. Strong leadership is all very well unless the strong leader is a complete ********.
Your liberal democracy looks alive and kicking. Your right wing are squealing like stuck pigs. Our political system is a shambles just now. God it's depressing having gordon brown as prime minister. he's a moron
Funny coincidence, in another forum a leftist friend and I are agreeing that we should stop corporations' involvement in the political process. In fact I think I mentioned that here as well, somewhere. That's the real problem on this side of the pond, imo, that politicians are serving the wrong masters - corporations. If we were to strip them of the rights they enjoy but do not deserve (that list being infinite since corporations aren't citizens) it would go a long way toward keeping the politicians screwing up on OUR behalf, for a change. They wouldn't be confused by those truckloads of cash mucking up their reasoning processes.
The video makers definition of a republic annoys me-it is just flat out wrong. OK So I'm a bit of a pedant. So does his portrayal of democracy as being synonymous with mob rule. I can post dozens of links to similar arguments trotted out to try and prevent the extension of political power to ordinary power.
His contention that those who talk about left and right don't make clear what hey mean is also wrong. Maybe in america people don't understand the connotations everybody else does.
came across this
Fascism Anyone?
While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now.
If you wonder why europeand have been loathe to get involved in iraq and Afghanistan that is one of the reason. at least imo-course I could be talking a load of bollocks.
Fascism Anyone?
No doubt the authors are on the american equivalent of the loony left.
The video maker is right wing imo. As it happens I think your political system has exerted itself and looks like finally stopping the drift to the right. The right always invariably stuff it up and ruin the economy-greed gets in the way of common sense and anyone objecting dismissed as not knowing what they are talking about. Strong leadership is all very well unless the strong leader is a complete ********.
Your liberal democracy looks alive and kicking. Your right wing are squealing like stuck pigs. Our political system is a shambles just now. God it's depressing having gordon brown as prime minister. he's a moron
Funny coincidence, in another forum a leftist friend and I are agreeing that we should stop corporations' involvement in the political process. In fact I think I mentioned that here as well, somewhere. That's the real problem on this side of the pond, imo, that politicians are serving the wrong masters - corporations. If we were to strip them of the rights they enjoy but do not deserve (that list being infinite since corporations aren't citizens) it would go a long way toward keeping the politicians screwing up on OUR behalf, for a change. They wouldn't be confused by those truckloads of cash mucking up their reasoning processes.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169511 wrote: I Wasn't Asking About Your Grand Daughter . Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .
No, I wasn't trying to be a smart a$$ Daniyal. I was trying to get you to communicate better just what or who's flag you were inquiring about. You have learned how to copy and paste very well but you need to work on directing your posts to the right person and being a better one on one communicator. People might even grow to like you despite that big chip you carry around on your shoulder.
. Lon Know What I Was Saying He Was Trying To Be A Smart A$$$$ , That Come From His Olddddddddddd Age And Living In That Trailer He Seeking Attention Wherever He Can .No, I wasn't trying to be a smart a$$ Daniyal. I was trying to get you to communicate better just what or who's flag you were inquiring about. You have learned how to copy and paste very well but you need to work on directing your posts to the right person and being a better one on one communicator. People might even grow to like you despite that big chip you carry around on your shoulder.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Care to explain which flag you were asking about, Danny?
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1169622 wrote: Care to explain which flag you were asking about, Danny?
You Know I'm Talking About Your Flag , What Other Flag Could It Be This Is You Post Yes ? .
You Know I'm Talking About Your Flag , What Other Flag Could It Be This Is You Post Yes ?
.Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169431 wrote: How your grand Daughter doing .
The grand daughter is fine, however it's her daughter (great grand daughter) that I posted the picture of. Do you have a reading disability?
The grand daughter is fine, however it's her daughter (great grand daughter) that I posted the picture of. Do you have a reading disability?
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1169569 wrote: Funny coincidence, in another forum a leftist friend and I are agreeing that we should stop corporations' involvement in the political process. In fact I think I mentioned that here as well, somewhere. That's the real problem on this side of the pond, imo, that politicians are serving the wrong masters - corporations. If we were to strip them of the rights they enjoy but do not deserve (that list being infinite since corporations aren't citizens) it would go a long way toward keeping the politicians screwing up on OUR behalf, for a change. They wouldn't be confused by those truckloads of cash mucking up their reasoning processes.
Two previous American presidents warned against that very thing-Roosevelt and Eisenhower. people like the maker of that video seem unable that it is not the future oligrchy you need to worry about it's the one you already have and that has been ruling recently. It's a funny attitude if you think about it-if people demand government do things for them it's socialism and a bad thing and leads to big government, if companies get government to do things for them that's OK and good for business even if it mean things like-for instance- environmental protection get watered down to the detriment of everybody else and people are helpless to defend themselves against the action of a big company polluting the water table or taking the top off a mountain near where they live by strip mining or a timber company clear cutting and causing floods. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction that stops the issues being actually discussed.
I wouldn't say that was leftist that is slap bang in the middle. besides the video maker thinks there is no left or right. I suppose as long as companies or private individuals can make big donations to political parties they are always going to want to get something back for their money. The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.
posted by daniyal
You Know I'm Talking About Your Flag , What Other Flag Could It Be This Is You Post Yes ?
Well there's also the st georges cross, the union jack and the saltire
Two previous American presidents warned against that very thing-Roosevelt and Eisenhower. people like the maker of that video seem unable that it is not the future oligrchy you need to worry about it's the one you already have and that has been ruling recently. It's a funny attitude if you think about it-if people demand government do things for them it's socialism and a bad thing and leads to big government, if companies get government to do things for them that's OK and good for business even if it mean things like-for instance- environmental protection get watered down to the detriment of everybody else and people are helpless to defend themselves against the action of a big company polluting the water table or taking the top off a mountain near where they live by strip mining or a timber company clear cutting and causing floods. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction that stops the issues being actually discussed.
I wouldn't say that was leftist that is slap bang in the middle. besides the video maker thinks there is no left or right. I suppose as long as companies or private individuals can make big donations to political parties they are always going to want to get something back for their money. The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.
posted by daniyal
You Know I'm Talking About Your Flag , What Other Flag Could It Be This Is You Post Yes ?
Well there's also the st georges cross, the union jack and the saltire
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
I called the guy leftist not because of his views on this subject, but just because he's leftist. 
I agree that environmental protection is definitely a role of gov't. gmc wrote: The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.The better achievement is that we've forgotten that that's what he is.
washingtonpost.com
I agree that environmental protection is definitely a role of gov't. gmc wrote: The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.The better achievement is that we've forgotten that that's what he is.
washingtonpost.com
We're Supposed to be a Republic
gmc;1169816 wrote: Two previous American presidents warned against that very thing-Roosevelt and Eisenhower. people like the maker of that video seem unable that it is not the future oligrchy you need to worry about it's the one you already have and that has been ruling recently. It's a funny attitude if you think about it-if people demand government do things for them it's socialism and a bad thing and leads to big government, if companies get government to do things for them that's OK and good for business even if it mean things like-for instance- environmental protection get watered down to the detriment of everybody else and people are helpless to defend themselves against the action of a big company polluting the water table or taking the top off a mountain near where they live by strip mining or a timber company clear cutting and causing floods. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction that stops the issues being actually discussed.
I wouldn't say that was leftist that is slap bang in the middle. besides the video maker thinks there is no left or right. I suppose as long as companies or private individuals can make big donations to political parties they are always going to want to get something back for their money. The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.
posted by daniyal
Well there's also the st georges cross, the union jack and the saltire
gmc , Thank's But I Asking Accountable What Was The Meaning Of His Flag The Red , White , Blue , Being This Is His Post , Guess He Dosen't Have And Answer Owell .
I wouldn't say that was leftist that is slap bang in the middle. besides the video maker thinks there is no left or right. I suppose as long as companies or private individuals can make big donations to political parties they are always going to want to get something back for their money. The trick is to work out how to make sure people get to have a say in who makes the laws and their voice is heard properly. At the moment I think the US is doing better than us at that. Being able to elect the mixed race son of a single parent to be president is quite an achievement.
posted by daniyal
Well there's also the st georges cross, the union jack and the saltire
gmc , Thank's But I Asking Accountable What Was The Meaning Of His Flag The Red , White , Blue , Being This Is His Post , Guess He Dosen't Have And Answer Owell .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169830 wrote: gmc , Thank's But I Asking Accountable What Was The Meaning Of His Flag The Red , White , Blue , Being This Is His Post , Guess He Dosen't Have And Answer Owell .
Your response to my answer is set already, so why don't you just go ahead?
Your response to my answer is set already, so why don't you just go ahead?
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1169844 wrote: Your response to my answer is set already, so why don't you just go ahead?
If you going to answer the question go ahead if not let not waste time here ok. It's really not a big thing if you don't know ,
If you going to answer the question go ahead if not let not waste time here ok. It's really not a big thing if you don't know ,
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Yer bait don't work here, fisherman.
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Accountable;1169936 wrote:
Yer bait don't work here, fisherman.
It's No Bait Nor Am I Trying To Trick You Really , I Have Run Across Guys Like You Who Speak Of The Republic / Country Etc , And They Have This Media Script They Follow To The Letter , But When Ask About Their Flag They Always Waveing They Never Have An Answer , Because Some Only Taught Stick To The Script / Link's . That Why It Best To Have A Open Mind . Overstand Something Here Ok I Not Here To Convert Anyone Here Unlike You . It Best To Let People Like You Speak What's In Your Heart . Because Some People Wear Two Faces And It Can Be Hard To Pick Them Out Sometime You Know What I'm Saying .
Yer bait don't work here, fisherman.
It's No Bait Nor Am I Trying To Trick You Really , I Have Run Across Guys Like You Who Speak Of The Republic / Country Etc , And They Have This Media Script They Follow To The Letter , But When Ask About Their Flag They Always Waveing They Never Have An Answer , Because Some Only Taught Stick To The Script / Link's . That Why It Best To Have A Open Mind . Overstand Something Here Ok I Not Here To Convert Anyone Here Unlike You . It Best To Let People Like You Speak What's In Your Heart . Because Some People Wear Two Faces And It Can Be Hard To Pick Them Out Sometime You Know What I'm Saying .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
We're Supposed to be a Republic
Daniyal;1169967 wrote: ... I Have Run Across Guys Like You Who Speak Of The Republic / Country Etc , And They Have This Media Script They Follow To The Letter , ... That Why It Best To Have A Open Mind . ...
Never Argue With An Idiot. If you have something of substance to add to the conversation, feel free. You don't need my response. If you'd rather do your Overstand masturbation bit, feel free to do it elsewhere.
Never Argue With An Idiot. If you have something of substance to add to the conversation, feel free. You don't need my response. If you'd rather do your Overstand masturbation bit, feel free to do it elsewhere.