Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Despite criticisms, I feel the US Constitution is great (rights), so far…

UN has done a better job for current times, in many ways, in the same sort of spirit…

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

How do you compare an organizational structure to a concept? One is a strictly defined setup up of the government with all its sectors and one is a concept, a set of specific beliefs prioritizing liberties and personal dignity for all. Any given organizational structure can through a long morphing process or a quick snap utterly giveup these beliefs. Are you saying a republic cannot hold a democracy?

If you're saying that US is the last "democratic" country in the world to be an example of democracy, then you and I are on the same page. Starting with the elitist electoral college, on through the near monarch-like treatment of the presidents, and ending with the tight grip of corporations on the major news outlets, US at least today is a pseudo-democracy. In fact, I doubt a intense money-worshiping capitalist nation can hold a true democracy.

As far as voting goes, yes I believe voting is a given right to any and all? Unfortunately, voting is an example of herding, a type of social network. And herding can improve the quality of decision making or it can xxxx it up. In a state of fear and manipulation of information, the quality of votes will certainly suffer.

Before there can be any organizational structures or institutions there must be concepts. You are confusing the adjective democratic, with the noun, democracy. This isn't about what you think the difference between these two forms of government are, this is about what the framers actually set up and the distinctions they made. While I do not agree with any form of government, there is a difference in what was set up and intended, and what it became. As Benjamin Franklin stepped out of the Constitional Convention in 1787, someone asked him what they had, a republic or a monarchy, and Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

While the American Republic is a democratic republic, it is not a democracy. The reason being is that even in a republic, officials are voted into existence. However, the chief distinction between a republic and a democracy are the narrowly defined powers. The main distinction is that in a republic, voting is for the purpose of well-informed and educated citizens, choosing officials to administer the government within its narrowly defined functions that cannot be changed. It is because not everyone can be well-informed and educated, and because no two people are equal (humanity being divided between superior intellects and inferior ones), that the framers knew democracy would be the tyranny of the majority.

In a democracy, voting is done, not only to choose political talking heads but also to determine the functions and goals and powers of the government. This means that the government functions are not and cannot be limited to the Constitution and must by default expand as more and more powers are granted to it by voting. That is the chief distinction. And you can see why, under a democracy, the government turns into the welfare-warfare state.

The framers set up the electoral college for a reason, and you may call it elitist, but that is what a republic is. You do not directly vote as that is granting powers entirely to the executive. Therein lies the whole system of dividing the power within three branches, which at the present moment is gradually merging into one giant monolithic nanny state.

The monarchy-like treatment of the presidents is a modern convention. While you may despise it, as do I, it naturally came as the government transitioned slowly and insidiously into a democracy, and an empire. During the time of Thomas Jefferson for example the presidents were known to have casual walks on the street, and conversations with normal folks. There was no such thing as a secret service. This whole notion of "spreading democracy" and the word itself did not become en vogue until Wilsonianism.

As far as "money worshipping", there is nothing wrong with money. Money is like anything else, it can be good and bad, based on how it is used and earned. It's a matter of perspectives. To indict capitalism entirely for what is simply human errancy makes about as much sense as blaming alcohol because some abuse it. If you want to curb corruption, I suggest not preaching more democracy, but far less government.

Capitalism in the true sense is nothing about worshipping the state. That the state in a democracy preys upon the market for its benefit and expands its power, is irrelevant. Worship of the state is flatly called fascism, socialism, communism, democracy, etc. Before you indict capitalism, know that it is precisely because of capitalism why America has been such a successful economic model, and it is because of an ever growing government that preaches more and more the mantra of democracy, socialistic policies, and "social justice"(whatever that means) that this economic model is being undermined.



In the end, democracy is an unholy crusade against all that is higher and noble in man, and it takes that and submerges it into mass culture and conformity in which mediocrity becomes king. It produces a dependency culture and gradually inculcates a sense of entitlement among the masses, and identity politics, class politics, and fringe groups more and more begin to pull on the democracy tug of war. We see it every day. Woe is us.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

It would really help me lots if you told me what you think 'democracy' means.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

It would really help me lots if you told me what you think 'democracy' means.

Rule by the majority.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Rule by the majority.

Yeah, but NO. REAL democracy isn't on TV (often)

That (%) isn't my idea of 'democracy'...

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Yeah, but NO. REAL democracy isn't on TV (often)

That (%) isn't my idea of 'democracy'...

Does anyone want to step forward and volunteer to translate that?

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Does anyone want to step forward and volunteer to translate that?

I think you got that blah blah translator... you could try that...

another way would be to ask me a question.

[Edit]///

I'm not sure even 'blah blah blah' will translate correctly.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

another way would be to ask me a question.

What would be the point if your still going to speak in jibberish?

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

What would be the point if your still going to speak in jibberish?

Yeah. So, what does democracy, mean?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Yeah. So, what does democracy, mean?

Redundancy.