Is the United States a Republic, but not a Democracy?

[James972]

Every breath you take, every post you make demonstrates your lack of understanding.

substance free because you lack the ability to defend what you say!!. Sorry

 

[lenski7]

you missed the point again, both were identical to our founders since they both meant huge central govt. Our founders were geniuses who studied all of history and learned that govt was the source of evil on earth. They did not care what rationale liberals used to centralize govt. Now do you finally understand?

Government is necessary to have a fair, and just society. Without government what is crime, what is just, and what is the punishment for the unjust. The government does the will of the people, to keep the uncivilized in-line on be-hath of the people, so that they may not venture out into a dangerous, and insecure world with only them-self to stand with them. An absolute anarchy, is destroyed by a monarchy, we would have no unity, we would not be able to fight as one, not even be able to set aside our differences for one moment. The Constitution was a creation of a central government, central government with limits, and checks on its own power, but when those checks are ignored we have tyranny. So I guess you suppose the centralization of the Federal govt. by the U.S Constitution is a source of evil, and that the Articles of Confederation were clearly superior with a busted up loose Fed, that was supposed to unite the states, but really did nothing.

 

[James972]

Failing that, the excesses of democracy are generally less bad than the excesses of republics.

but it this specific case we have a Constitutional republican democratic mixed govt wherein the people are voting in liberals and socialists who oppose the Constitution! So we must limit the people or persuade them that socialism is evil and anti American.

 

[James972]

Government is necessary to have a fair, and just society. .

of course our founders were not anarchists!! Did someone tell you they were???

 

[lenski7]

but it this specific case we have a Constitutional republican democratic mixed govt wherein the people are voting in liberals and socialists who oppose the Constitution! So we must limit the people or persuade them that socialism is evil and anti American.

Have the people not the right to vote for who represents their views, if they vote in Liberals, and Socialists they can use Article V to amend the Constitution, which is a document that can change to suit the majority opinion better. You have the right to be against the Constitution, It is your 1st Amendment right!

 

[James972]

. You have the right to be against the Constitution, It is your 1st Amendment right!

wrong politicians must take an oath to protect the Constitution! Democrats must lie to assume office. They have no right!

 

[Kobie]

but it this specific case we have a Constitutional republican democratic mixed govt wherein the people are voting in liberals and socialists who oppose the Constitution! So we must limit the people or persuade them that socialism is evil and anti American.

Of course, the idea that "liberals and socialists oppose the Constitution" is grade-A horsebleep, but w/e.

 

[lenski7]

wrong politicians must take an oath to protect the Constitution! Democrats must lie to assume office. They have no right!

They are not attacking the Constitution, if they invoke their Congressional power to initiate a proposal for an amendment to the constitution! If they pass un-constitutional laws repeatedly then there is an issue.

The signers of our Constitution, understood our Constitution would have to be able to be changed, that is how it has managed to survive for over 200 years, thanks to Article V

 

[James972]

Of course, the idea that "liberals and socialists oppose the Constitution" is grade-A horsebleep, but w/e.

please tell us how socialists can support the Constitution? Was Jefferson a socialist?

Imagine if Stalin had listened to Jefferson. 60 million would not have starved to death!!

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread."-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kobie]

please tell us how socialists can support the Constitution? Was Jefferson a socialist?

Imagine if Stalin had listened to Jefferson. 60 million would not have starved to death!!

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread."-Thomas Jefferson

If Stalin had listened to Jefferson, that would have been something else since Thomas Jefferson had been dead for about a hundred years before Stalin started acting up.

 

[lenski7]

of course our founders were not anarchists!! Did someone tell you they were???

Right from you

"you missed the point again, both were identical to our founders since they both meant huge central govt. Our founders were geniuses who studied all of history and learned that govt was the source of evil on earth. They did not care what rationale liberals used to centralize govt. Now do you finally understand?"

If I am to understand this the people do not commit crimes, the government is the source of all evil, and crime, all of it. The Founders centralized government, you act as if they were anarchists. Not me, if this is not your point of view learn to communicate it better.

 

[lenski7]

please tell us how socialists can support the Constitution? Was Jefferson a socialist?

Imagine if Stalin had listened to Jefferson. 60 million would not have starved to death!!

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread."-Thomas Jefferson

Stalin's issue with starvation was redistributing the land to everyone, and the lazy got paid just as much as those who worked. The idiots got paid just as much as those who knew how to farm, and those who actually had land, either ended up dead, or even less 'equal' than anyone else. He didn't direct them exactly how to farm and that was the issue there. Socialism involves community ownership, not government ownership. Stalin was the head of a government where people owned nothing, the government owned all. You don't understand the difference between Socialism, and Communism.

 

[James972]

If I am to understand this the people do not commit crimes, the government is the source of all evil, and crime, all of it.

HIlter Stalin and Mao slowly killed 180 million human souls with central govt. Central govt is by far the greatest evil in human history. This is what our genius Founders knew without having seen the great 20th Century liberals! You have seen them and still don't know what you saw!!

 

[Master PO]

please tell us how socialists can support the Constitution? Was Jefferson a socialist?

socialism is collective.

what i can say is that if a socialist was a member of the house, and wanted to pass collective legislation, it would never make it pass the senate, but die on the senate floor, when senators were appointed by the state legislatures.

 

[James972]

Stalin's issue with starvation

Hilter Stalin and Mao and all those who controlled central governments throughout human history has issues: they always got millions and millions killled. This is why our Founders were libertarians and conservatives. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

socialism is collective.

what i can say is that if a socialist was a member of the house, and wanted to pass collective legislation, it would never make it pass the senate, but die on the senate floor, when senators were appointed by the state legislatures.

yes but nowadays everyone is a libsocialistcommie so the Senate would be too whether appointed by people or state legislatures.

 

[lenski7]

HIlter Stalin and Mao slowly killed 180 million human souls with central govt. Central govt is by far the greatest evil in human history. This is what our genius Founders knew without having seen the great 20th Century liberals! You have seen them and still don't know what you saw!!

Hitler was a Fascist, Stalin, and Mao were Communists. They were not what a Liberal should be to any extent. Get your ideologies straight. Rome prospered under an absolute dictator known as Augustus Caesar, government was a source of good in some cases. You ignore the fact without government, our lives would be absolute hell, with too much government we live in absolute hell. A moderation is required between too much, and none. Since you cite the Founding Fathers as absolute truth. Franklin stated "Moderation in all things -- including moderation.", moderation in all things, even government is required, we need a moderated amount of central government power, we need a moderated amount of state power, and a moderated amount of the people's power, Which the presidency, and the Senate were supposed to hold back the mob like rule of the House of Representatives, which was a buffer, but not a good enough buffer at times. Thanks to the 17th there is little buffer between the Constitution, and the people changing it in a fit of emotion. Central government is necessary in moderation, without it we live in a state like the Articles of Confederation, what do we do then, what did we do, we had a common enemy, but after that issue, imagine the constant bickering, lawsuits, and wars between states.

 

[Master PO]

yes but nowadays everyone is a libsocialistcommie so the Senate would be too whether appointed by people or state legislatures.

the people are collective, the state legislatures of the senate are not collective

if our constitution would return to appointed senators by the states, collective legislation would come to a stop, because the senate would not allow it to pass.

 

[lenski7]

yes but nowadays everyone is a libsocialistcommie so the Senate would be too whether appointed by people or state legislatures.

Well if everyone is a "libsocialistcommie" (shudder) then shouldn't that be the popular opinion, wouldn't it be authoritarian of you to oppress the majority with a minority opinion, and then meaning you were a hypocrite because you say you are against oppression but act otherwise.

 

[James972]

Well if everyone is a "libsocialistcommie" (shudder) then shouldn't that be the popular opinion,

it is thats why the country is always drifting left despite the uber conservative Constitution that is supposed to prevent it.

 

[James972]

wouldn't it be authoritarian of you to oppress the majority with a minority opinion,.

well, if the majority becomes Nazis, for example, it would be Godly to oppress them and make them Republican conservative/libertarian.

 

[lenski7]

well, if the majority becomes Nazis, for example, it would be Godly to oppress them and make them Republican conservative/libertarian.

That is backwards thinking, if by then the Nazi opinion was in majority, you might as well be screwed to start with, also it would be hypocrisy to not allow a somehow majority Nazi party the ability to vote in a supposed Republic, listening to you it seems like we are getting closer, and closer to mob-rule with opinions like this.

 

[James972]

That is backwards thinking, if by then the Nazi opinion was in majority, you might as well be screwed to start with, also it would be hypocrisy to not allow a somehow majority Nazi party the ability to vote in a supposed Republic, listening to you it seems like we are getting closer, and closer to mob-rule with opinions like this.

our Founders knew to oppose a basically benign monarch and you don't know to oppose a very deadly Nazi?????

 

[lenski7]

our Founders knew to oppose a basically benign monarch and you don't know to oppose a very deadly Nazi?????

If you are assuming by violence, WE WOULD BE SCREWED, if they were in the majority, they would be armed just like any other American, then you would be really pushing for the uprising of a dictator via the anarchy caused by the massive bloodshed.

 

[James972]

If you are assuming by violence,.

not assuming anything. try to be substantive please