T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
338.1 | Who are the "people" | POLAR::WILSONC | | Sun Mar 12 1995 19:38 | 2 |
| I think the next step then is to define "people", ie. which people do
elected representatives represent.
|
338.2 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | can we have your liver then? | Sun Mar 12 1995 20:03 | 6 |
| The bipedal large brained life forms are usually considered to be
people.
Hope this helps.
Glenn
|
338.3 | Some of those represented | GMASEC::CLARK | | Sun Mar 12 1995 20:05 | 34 |
| .1 Which people do elected representatives represent..
From the low voter turnouts I would guess our representatives represent
a lot of dunderheads who don't care enough to vote, often vote straight
ticket because they would never vote for a Democrat/Republican or who
vote as their parents/spouses have informed them to vote, and who vote,
when confused by the issues, for the best looking candidate who tells
them the best sounding lies, "Yes, Virginia, there IS free lunch! We
will let the government pay for it! And, in our party platform, we will
not have to raise taxes. We are the party for the working man!".
For those of you who do not receive the Worcester Telegram in Mass.
a recent column by Bob Herbert will give you an idea of how informed
the voters are (data from the America's Talking/Gallup Poll) 1,020
respondents - 60% could not name who was president when the A-bomb
was dropped, 35% did not know the first A-bomb was dropped on Japan,
4% thought it had been dropped on some other country, 22% knew NOTHING
about an atomic bomb attack, two percent thought JFK launched the first
nuclear strike and one percent thought it was Nixon.
See, Kennedy was twice as bad as Nixon. Statistics don't lie.
There's more. "An election night poll showed that nearly half the
voters believed that either welfare or foreign aid was the largest item
in the federal budget." And another "Consider that many of the people
who are screaming the loudest about the so-called Republican revolution
were too ignorant about the issue of civic responsibility to drag
themselve to the polls last November to vote."
That's some of the people who get represented by our representatives.
Of course they never have to worry about hearing from such
constituencies or worry that how they vote will alienate such
non-voters. "When in doubt vote for the incumbent"
|
338.4 | medium or rare? | POLAR::WILSONC | | Sun Mar 12 1995 21:15 | 6 |
| Premise 1: Dunderheads are people who dont vote or vote irresponsibly.
Premise 2: I dont vote.
Conclusion: I am a dunderhead.
Perhaps I should give up my liver.
|
338.5 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sun Mar 12 1995 21:19 | 9 |
| Well you can keep it unless you've filled in your Liver Donor Card.
Yer prolly OK since if ya don't vote, you prolly also don't bother with
carrying socially useful documents.
Another theory is that your brain donor card has already been executed.
Seems to fit the data, if dunder :== empty
|
338.6 | give me back my liver | POLAR::WILSONC | | Sun Mar 12 1995 22:05 | 2 |
| What exactly is a socially useful document. A Visa?
If you can tell me what a vote does I'll tell you why I dont vote.
|
338.7 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sun Mar 12 1995 22:20 | 4 |
| Priorities, PRIORITIES!!
Brain foist, then liver.
|
338.8 | to wit or not | POLAR::WILSONC | | Sun Mar 12 1995 22:53 | 2 |
| You seem to suffer for this I am sorry.
|
338.9 | pink | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Mon Mar 13 1995 04:42 | 33 |
| .3 A-bomb. Didn't the first one go off up a tower in some US desert,
full of radio active giant ants and loads of B-Movie actors? Old
Openhiemer gave his "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"
speach and became a "goddam pinko" in the process.
The kicker with democracy IMHO, is information. Only informed votes
can really help the system. People who vote for higher welfare
payments and lower taxes for instance are a tadd perplexing. Rather
like tighter gun control for everybody else but could they a mini-gun
on the car as part of a well ordered militia.
Some "goddam pinko" American prof. did some very interesting
experiments on democracy. These were based on the idea that for it to
work people must be willing to change there minds. What he did was
collect a pseudorandom group together, put them in a hotel for 48 hours
and get them talking about, in this case, crime and punishment. This
was filmed by C4 (populated, owned, run, and funded, entirely by
"goddam pinkos"). This was great TV. Watching peoples mind's clicking
when they were finally confrunted by there predjudices was wonderfull.
After there little introductory chats they were put in little groups to
talk about some subtopic. The capital punishment one was the most
"tense" as I remember it. Only one person declared themselves
unconditionally opposed to it at the start (spot that goddam pinko)
at the end of 24 hours ear bashing only two of a group of about twenty
had not changed sides. I think (I think I remember) that it was the use
of "expert witnesses" that did this. Cops, QC's, perps, victims,
politicians, and soldiers(northen ireland).
Anyway, work calls.
R. Michael.
|
338.10 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | One if by LAN, two if by C | Mon Mar 13 1995 06:33 | 15 |
|
The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Federalist
Republic. Repeat after me:
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS...."
We have certain, inalienable rights that can never be 'voted away'
by the majority. In democracies the majority rules. In the U.S. the
majority rules only on issues that are not covered under inalienable
rights.
jim
|
338.11 | Matter of degree... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Mar 13 1995 09:32 | 7 |
|
Well, the Grrek origin of the word democracy implies it is just
"the rule of the people". Forget the forms, look at the reality.
Do you think the people rule the USA today ? More or less than
in the old days ? I think we're a democracy-wannabe...
bb
|
338.12 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Mon Mar 13 1995 10:19 | 11 |
| I pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the democracy, for which it stands....
...doesn't sound right.
Congress is a democracy, usually. America is a Constitutional Repulic,
or is when the people of power want it to be.
You're right thought, there is a lot of confusion amonst the folks
who didn't pay attention during civics class. Maybe, the course
materials these days is being spun in a PC way.
|
338.13 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 13 1995 11:33 | 13 |
| according to the curmudgeon's dictionary, democracy is:
democracy, n. A form of government in which all the citizens have
equal voice regardless of their race, color, creed, etc. A term
commonly applied to the government of the United States; hence, a
figment of the imagination.
I swear to the Lord
I still can't see
Why Democracy means
Everybody but me.
-- Langston Hughes, "The Black Man Speaks"
|
338.14 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 11:38 | 10 |
| Was Langston Hughes a contemporary? If he wasn't, I can help answer
his question.
During times of slavery, blacks were considered property...an extension
of their owners if you will. Because of this, they were considered
subhuman and hence not afforded the rights of the rest of us.
Isn't it amazing how easily we can get suckered into believing this??
-Jack
|
338.15 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 11:47 | 4 |
| The reader can take it anyway think feel appropriate. The point is
that we have seen government manipulate the Constitution as they see
fit. What was that quote from animal farm??? "All animals are created
equal but some are created more equal than others."
|
338.16 | What Is Upheld??? | STRATA::BARBIERI | God cares. | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:20 | 11 |
| Just want to second the thoughts of .10 and .11 and I am
surprised by the apparent lack of discernment regarding
differentiating democracy from republic.
As .10 implies, a country can fall under the description
of democracy and anihilate any certain race of people - so
long as the majority votes in such legislation. Our govt.
does not uphold majority rule that is contrary to what a
certain document says (that document being the Constitution).
Its scary to not IMMEDIATELY discern the difference.
|
338.17 | A bit strange | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:04 | 16 |
| Should we elect representitives, delegates, or leaders? I think
leaders are what we think we want. People to make tough descisions and
see them out. Alas, what we get is career politicians. they need the
votes, to get paid, get on the tele, pick up the directorships etc.
that pay them the big bucks.
In the UK at least, I think politicians pay should take a serious jump
upwards but it must be their main or exclusive income. That way we get
people who turn up occationally.
Neither USA or UK are one citizen one vote. Due to our rather wierd
systems different votes have different value depending on where there
cast. Add the presidential electoral college thing and it all gets a
bit strange.
R. Michael.
|
338.18 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:05 | 20 |
| There seems to be an assumption that being a democracy and being a republic
are mutually exclusive. Where does this idea come from? Anyone have any
documentation?
The definition of democracy is in .0. Here's the definition of the word
Republic from the American Heritage Dictionary.
republic 1. Any political order that is not a monarchy. 2 A constitutional
form of government, esp. a democratic one [from the Latin respublica "public
matter"]
So it would appear that the United States is both a democracy and a republic
since we are both "Government by the people, exercised ... through elected
representatives" and a "political order that is not a monarchy".
And definition 2 defines a republic as a constitutional democracy so by
that definition not only are democracy not mutually exclusive, democracy seems
to be a subset of republic.
George
|
338.19 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | One if by LAN, two if by C | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:15 | 14 |
|
> And definition 2 defines a republic as a constitutional democracy so by
>that definition not only are democracy not mutually exclusive, democracy seems
>to be a subset of republic.
Sounds good to me as long as we keep democracy a subset of republic
and not try to go vice-versa.
The point is, we are not JUST a democracy....we have a
constitution. Can one have a democracy without a constitution and if
so, what would it look like?
jim
|
338.20 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:19 | 7 |
| I heard the purpose of the electoral college was although commoners
had the power to vote, The EC was instituted because the politicians
didn't believe the commoners were smart enough to vote.
I believe the EC should be abolished.
-Jack
|
338.21 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:29 | 12 |
| re: . <<< Note 338.17 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>
> Should we elect representitives, delegates, or leaders? I think
> leaders are what we think we want.
It depends upon the position to which you are electing them. If it's
a Chief Executive position (President, Prime Minister, Governor, Mayor,
sheriff, etc.), then you want a leader. In most other positions (State
assembly, city council, Congress, Parliament, etc.) you want a representative.
Too many (in some cases _any_) people presuming to be leaders in positions
which they were elected to to be representatives, is not goodness.
|
338.22 | Regionalism... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:41 | 8 |
|
Electoral College penalizes a regional candidate, and harkens
back to the days of strongly differentiated regions. To the
extent we still think the USA has distinct regions, the EC is
an idea which still has some merit. In a homogenous country,
it would be a silly anachronism.
bb
|
338.23 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:48 | 12 |
| .14
Apologies for tardiness - I'm REALLY busy today. With real work.
From the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia:
Langston Hughes (1902-67), an American writer, expressed the life
of a black American in poetry, prose, and drama with an almost
effortless use of the cadences of blues and jazz. His whimsical
outlook was nonetheless realistic, and a later militancy is evident
in a posthumously published collection of poetry, The Panther and
the Lash (1967).
|
338.24 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:42 | 11 |
| From a practical point of view the Electoral College hasn't meant that much.
In almost all cases, who ever wins the popular vote, also wins the Electoral
College vote. I think there were only one or two cases, if that, when that was
not true.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that there have been elections that were
within 10%-20% in the popular vote but were 80% or 90% land slides in the
Electoral College. Interesting from an academic point of view, but the same guy
would have ended up president.
George
|
338.25 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:52 | 1 |
| Who gets to be in the electoral college?
|
338.26 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:58 | 18 |
| Each party at the state level selects a slate of electors . When you vote for
president you are voting for which slate (winner take all) will vote for your
state.
So for example, if the Democratic ticket wins in Massachusetts and the
Republican ticket wins in New Hampshire, then the slate of electors chosen by
the Massachusetts State Democratic party will cast the electoral votes for
Massachusetts and the slate of electors chosen by the New Hampshire Republican
party will cast the electoral votes for New Hampshire.
The electors chosen meet in their states capital to vote on a designated day,
usually in the middle of the December following the election. They send their
votes to Congress where they are counted in early January. The House counts
the votes for President, the Senate counts the votes for Vice President.
There are almost never any surprises.
George
|
338.27 | Each state's electors meet separately... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Mar 13 1995 15:00 | 9 |
|
It's ceremonial - the parties pick their electors, usually from
luminaries and contributors.
When Pennsylvania has gone Democratic, James Michener did it. It
turned out to be a dinner party for the Pa. electors. They seal
them up and send them to the Senate.
bb
|
338.28 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Mon Mar 13 1995 17:52 | 4 |
| George is still here?
%*]
|
338.29 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 09:13 | 8 |
| RE <<< Note 338.28 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>
> %*]
Now there's a fine definition of democracy.
Nice contribution,
George
|
338.30 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | One if by LAN, two if by C | Tue Mar 14 1995 09:22 | 14 |
|
>> %*]
>
> Now there's a fine definition of democracy.
>
> Nice contribution,
> George
Actually, it reminds me of the expression on Clinton's face after
he saw the congressional election results. ;*)
jim
|
338.31 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:46 | 12 |
| I'm a bit surprised at the lack of debate here. Every time anyone says
anything about the U.S. being a democracy there seems to be a strong argument
that they don't know what they are talking about because the United States is a
republic rather than a democracy.
The definitions in the dictionary would suggest it is both. I asked for
definitions that back up the point above that is always being raised.
So have we decided that the United States is both a democracy and a republic
or is still in dispute?
George
|
338.32 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:56 | 6 |
| I think we've decided, George, that what is important to you about the
words and the definitions is not important to all that many people; you
seem to be more interested in defending your misstatements than in
communicating anything of interest. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
DougO
|
338.33 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:18 | 20 |
| RE <<< Note 338.32 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> I think we've decided, George, that what is important to you about the
> words and the definitions is not important to all that many people; you
> seem to be more interested in defending your misstatements than in
> communicating anything of interest. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Hold on a minute. Are you are saying that I am alone in using the definitions
of words found in the dictionary and that most people use other definitions?
Funny, SOAPBOX is the only place I've ever heard that claim made. Well ok,
people in the sports notes file don't like the dictionary definition of the
word sport, but most of the other people I've encountered in my life seem to
respect the dictionary as the source of definitions of words in the English
language.
Ok, just so I know the rules here in SOAPBOX, where do we look for the
definition of words when there is a dispute over their meaning?
George
|
338.34 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:24 | 17 |
| > Are you are saying that I am alone in using the definitions of words
> found in the dictionary and that most people use other definitions?
No. I'm saying that you seem to think that the dictionary definition
is useful to CYA when someone else disagrees with you; and your point
in this definition debate is CYA, rather than figuring out what is
important to the person with whom you are ostensibly engaged in the
communication in the first place.
> Ok, just so I know the rules here in SOAPBOX, where do we look for
> the definition of words when there is a dispute over their meaning?
I don't pretend to be arbiter for SOAPBOX. But I can tell you that
the name of the game is communicating. Focus on achieving understanding,
not on insisting you're right. Nobody cares about the latter but you.
DougO
|
338.35 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:38 | 26 |
| RE <<< Note 338.34 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> No. I'm saying that you seem to think that the dictionary definition
> is useful to CYA when someone else disagrees with you; and your point
> in this definition debate is CYA, rather than figuring out what is
> important to the person with whom you are ostensibly engaged in the
> communication in the first place.
No this is not true. Most often someone has busted my chops by saying that
I was using the wrong definition of the word democracy while I was trying to
make a different point. All I'm doing is trying to get agreement as to what
these words mean so we don't have to get side tracked arguing about that every
time the words are used.
> I don't pretend to be arbiter for SOAPBOX. But I can tell you that
> the name of the game is communicating. Focus on achieving understanding,
> not on insisting you're right. Nobody cares about the latter but you.
As long as I've been involved with SOAPBOX which has been a series of several
month spurts over the past 10 years or so, the name of the game in SOAPBOX has
been winning the argument including ad hominem attacks against people who's
views did not line up with right wing philosophy.
SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding.
George
|
338.36 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:48 | 9 |
|
Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!!! Will wonders never cease!! I'm in total agreement
with DougO!!
RE: .35
>SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding.
So why do you bother to keep trying?
|
338.37 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:39 | 5 |
| In answer to George's question -
It's a breath mint _AND_ a candy mint.
|
338.38 | | SUBPAC::JJENSEN | I don't want to go on the cart! | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:41 | 1 |
| Not to mention a floor wax and a dessert topping.
|
338.39 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:51 | 13 |
| RE <<< Note 338.36 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
> >SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding.
>
> So why do you bother to keep trying?
Strange question from the master of trying to cram opinions down the
throats of others.
Show me one place where you ever tried to understand what I was saying
rather than just dishing out insults.
George
|
338.40 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:55 | 23 |
| RE <<< Note 338.37 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>In answer to George's question -
>
> It's a breath mint _AND_ a candy mint.
No, this is not the position of the people with whom I debate.
When ever I try to use the words "democracy" or "republic" according to the
definition given in the dictionary I get flack saying I'm wrong and that I
should know better.
Notice now who is trying to understand and who is trying to blow smoke and
derail the debate. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, all I did was
present the dictionary definition and ask of you agree with it or not. If not
all I'm asking is for your definition.
And what do I get? The usual insults, an accusation that I am the one trying
to create confusion, and a self righteous claim from those who most often dish
out trash and ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening
and understanding.
George
|
338.41 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:56 | 2 |
|
George, the US is both a democracy and a republic. Is there a problem?
|
338.42 | What is this argument about ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:00 | 8 |
|
I wasn't actually aware there WAS a debate in this topic. I still
don't see one. Basically, a Republic is just "no king". A
Democracy is "rule of the people". Both are matters of degree.
What's to debate ?
bb
|
338.43 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:04 | 7 |
| >a self righteous claim from those who most often dish out trash and
>ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening and
>understanding.
Where's that Pot and Kettle note?
DougO
|
338.44 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:05 | 25 |
| RE <<< Note 338.42 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
> I wasn't actually aware there WAS a debate in this topic. I still
> don't see one. Basically, a Republic is just "no king". A
> Democracy is "rule of the people". Both are matters of degree.
>
> What's to debate ?
You tell me. The reason I asked was that in several previous notes I got
beat up for saying essentially what you wrote. There is a faction that believes
very strongly that the terms democracy and republic are mutually exclusive with
democracy being a town meeting form of government and republic being more of a
representative form of government.
When I say in these debates that the U.S.A. is a democracy I get back flack
about how I should "know better" and that the U.S.A. is a republic and not
a democracy.
So all I want to know from those folks is what their definition might be,
and why my definition (the dictionary definition) is wrong.
Of course this all means that I don't listen which is what SOAPBOX is all
about.
George
|
338.45 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:09 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 338.43 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Where's that Pot and Kettle note?
>
> DougO
I'd go easy there DougO, if there is a Pot & Kettle note, your note on how
SOAPBOX is all about listening and understanding would get the P&K note of the
year.
George
|
338.46 | It's the parties, alas... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:10 | 6 |
|
Well, George, it's really due to the unfortunate naming of our
political parties. If they were just named "hidebound conservatives"
and "kneejerk liberals", we wouldn't argue over the definitions.
bb
|
338.47 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:12 | 9 |
| RE <<< Note 338.46 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
> Well, George, it's really due to the unfortunate naming of our
> political parties. If they were just named "hidebound conservatives"
> and "kneejerk liberals", we wouldn't argue over the definitions.
... wana bet?
George
|
338.48 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:18 | 18 |
|
RE: .39
> trying to cram opinions
I voice my opinions... which for the most part are cynical...
So what?
Your problem is that you state opinion as fact... and then try to
defend yourself with verbosity ad naseum...
RE: Insults...
That's cause your such a freakin easy target....
|
338.49 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:41 | 6 |
| Give it a rest alternate polaski.
Ok, you guys who are always beating me up about the United States not being
a Democracy, where are you hiding. Come out and fight like ducks.
George
|
338.50 | Idjits for /nasser | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 15:43 | 8 |
|
RE: .49
> Give it a rest alternate polaski.
Good answer!!!
Good answer!!!
|
338.51 | Republic | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:27 | 19 |
| > <<< Note 338.49 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
> Ok, you guys who are always beating me up about the United States not being
>a Democracy, where are you hiding. Come out and fight like ducks.
Arguing/discussing something with you is a total waste of time. You always
have _YOUR_ opinion. when presented with eveidence based on dozens of
experts in a field you dismiss it as "only their opinion" while still
expressing _ONLY_ your opinion that you are correct.
So I will say it once. We are a republic that was the original intent
except for the town meetings which were/are a democratic form of local
government.
and in my best "george" voice "The above is my opinion so it is the ultimate
truth".
Amos
|
338.52 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:34 | 19 |
| RE <<< Note 338.51 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>
>Arguing/discussing something with you is a total waste of time. You always
>have _YOUR_ opinion. when presented with evidence based on dozens of
>experts in a field you dismiss it as "only their opinion" while still
>expressing _ONLY_ your opinion that you are correct.
That is not correct. What I said is that when interpreting the 2nd amendment
of the Constitution, Congress is only bound to decisions of the Supreme Court,
not to the experts that you guys listed.
>So I will say it once. We are a republic that was the original intent
>except for the town meetings which were/are a democratic form of local
>government.
That's not the way the dictionary defines those two words. What definition
are you using?
George
|
338.53 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:57 | 14 |
| <<< Note 338.40 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
> And what do I get? The usual insults, an accusation that I am the one trying
> to create confusion, and a self righteous claim from those who most often dish
> out trash and ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening
> and understanding.
I know, George can fight over the smallest piece of turf with all the
ferocity and futility of ol' Col. Custer. But in this case, I have to agree
with him. Soapbox is far more often used as a...well...soapbox, then a
forum for "listening and understanding." And not very pretty, with a few
very notable exceptions :-).
Tom
|
338.54 | A little history on this topic | DECC::VOGEL | | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:02 | 42 |
|
I think this all gets back to topic 50 were people were
giving Clinton a hard time for failing to provide leadership in
some areas, especially in cutting spending.
That string George said entered a note which said:
> There are no good leaders.
>
> And this is good. In a democracy the people should lead.
I took this as his argument to defend Clinton for failing to
lead. SO I replied (from 50.695)
> Since when is this a democracy? The founding fathers knew better.
> In most cases a democracy is a bad form of government.
There was then a brief discussion about what a democracy is, and
rather than rathole further, George created this topic.
I picked on George because I felt his comment about "the people
should lead" would only apply to a true democracy which we are not.
George....I think the point is that democracy is a relative term.
In a true democracy everyone has a vote on every issue. Certainly
the U.S. is not a true democracy. However people call governments
a democracy even when the people have votes on some of the issues.
This is not the strict political science definition of a democracy,
but it is a popular one, and by this definition the U.S. is a democracy.
Sorry I caused all sorts of people to get on your case in this topic.
However, my original point from topic 50 stands. In a true
democracy the people should lead, but we are not a true democracy.
Ed
|
338.55 | | TROOA::COLLINS | The Forest City Madman | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:03 | 4 |
|
Just stirring the pot here...what was the difference between a Republic
in the old U.S.S.R. and the Republic of the United States? :^)
|
338.56 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:07 | 14 |
| RE <<< Note 338.55 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Forest City Madman" >>>
> Just stirring the pot here...what was the difference between a Republic
> in the old U.S.S.R. and the Republic of the United States? :^)
Obviously there are many differences, communism versus capitalism, one party
with no choice versus two parties with ... well two parties.
But the thing they have in common, and the thing that makes them both
Republics is that both were born in a revolution in which they threw out the
system where the head of state was a monarch and they replaced it with a system
that did not have a monarch. Thus they were both republics.
George
|
338.57 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Mar 17 1995 12:56 | 20 |
| A democratic body is ruled by majority vote. The vote must be
in public (hear that: Congress?) The will of the majority overrules
the minority.
Therefore, Congress is a democracy.
A Republican form of government is where the people excersize their
sovereign powers themselves, or through delegation (congresscriters)
to the government via public servants. In America, the people
are sovereigns, excersizing self-rule with the governments instituted
with specific and limited (via Constitutions) powers and in specific
jurisdictions.
Therefore "we" are sovereigns. We abide by common law. Do we
need to conform to every dictate coming down from DC or our state
capitol? No. Does a major computer company have to? Yes, because
they exist at the whim of the government. Wait 'till you get a
national identity card, or a sosh#, then you exist at the whim of
the government too and get to abide by statute, ordinance and mandate.
|
338.58 | | TROOA::COLLINS | The Forest City Madman | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:14 | 3 |
|
Democracy is like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top.
|
338.59 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | bouncy bouncy | Fri Mar 17 1995 22:14 | 2 |
| Its arrival gives us pleasure and its departure simply leaves us
hungrier for more!
|
338.60 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Sat Mar 18 1995 00:27 | 2 |
|
I wish I'd said that 8^/.
|
338.61 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | bouncy bouncy | Sat Mar 18 1995 00:35 | 1 |
| You will Debra, you will.
|