4 phrases that I never want to hear again

[mairving]

(1.) "Will of the people" (Al's way).
(2.) "Disenfranchised voters" (People who don't follow directions).
(3.) "Dimpled Chad" (Hey if you bend the card a certain way, it looks like a vote for Gore)
(4.) "Voter intent" (Since he voted Demo for dog catcher, he had to vote for Gore)

[troysvihl]

The one I'm sick of the most is, "I want to fight for you!"

I'm pretty sick of the statments on any proposed solutions that begin with the words "We have to..." and other such collectivist garbage.

[stylin19]

I would like to add " Full, Fair and accurate..." to the list.

[bob]

"Devine the intent of the voter" - I change the channel when I here that one.

"counted, recounted,....Bla Bla"

"President elect Bush"

[SARGE]

If it comes down to none of Florida votes being counted, that gives Gore the election. You won't hear him hollering about "count every vote" then.

[LawyerRon]

Hey SARGE,
It depends on what the meaning of "vote" is.

[w1che]

The one I can't stand is.... We want to make sure ALL the votes are counted..... Makes me want to barf on my TV.

[Kubie]

I think they should have another recount.
After all "Its for the children" :D :D :D

[Kubie]

Yeh Sarge. Define vote.

[SARGE]

A vote, to be legal, should be clearly marked, punched, circled, colored, etc. A dimple, pimple, pregnant, 2-cornered chad doesn't count (to sane folks). An impression, to me, indicates a change of mind. A mosquito could penetrate a punch card ballot.
To define *is* a vote a vote, depends on the definition of *is*

[AlwaysUp]

I wake up some nights, mad as hell, with the words....TOO CLOSE TO CALL! What a media circus! The media spin, directly after election night was....if this isn't the single best reason to vote...blah, blah, blah. My strong belief is this Florida mess is the single best reason to support those apathetic souls that exercised their right NOT to vote!

[Jenni]

I'm gonna admit that I didn't vote, because I knew Bush would carry my state anyway. If I had known how close this was gonna be, I darn sure would have voted. You can count on this, that's one mistake I will NEVER make again!

[Liberty]

I am very sick and tired of hearing these idiots who are suposedly of the intelligence to run this nation refer to it as a DEMOCRACY!

For the last time...IT'S A REPUBLIC!!!!
:D :D :D

[kraken]

You are a democratic republic.

A republic does not have to be a democracy.

A democracy does not have to be a republic.

[Liberty]

Since the presidential election on November 7th, politicians, political pundits and operatives, reporters, pollsters, broadcasters, commentators, columnists, lawyers and judges are unwittiningly or deliberately perpetuating a grave falsehood. They constantly refer to our form of government as a democracy, instead of as a republic. The
founders of our nation, as well as the thousands of men and women who have died defending our country during the last 224 years, must be screaming from their graves.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is the difference between liberty for everyone or tyranny of the majority.

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org

[stylin19]

i have recently read the U.S.A. is defined as a "constitutional republic", however, I was taught a long time ago, that we are a "federal republic". I have never heard of us referred to as a "democratic republic" ( seems like a contradiction )

Ok, all you American history\political\governmental majors, what IS the U.S.A.. exactly ?

[Liberty]

The USA is a Constitutional Republic. Rights are God-given, not government given (sorry United Nations!). "Governments are instituted among men."

Democracy:
You own and live in a private home in a neighborhood with 10 other homeowners. The group holds an election and elect to establish your front yard as the community park and your toilet as the public bathroom. Done deal, majority rules.

Republic:
The same scenario-the group votes your yard is community property. When they show up to use their "park", they are arrested and charged with trespassing, loitering, etc. Unless they grew unruly and you were placed in a position to defend your (liberty) family, security, and private property :D

[troysvihl]

that drives me nuts too liberty

[Liberty]

Thanks.
I liked this one:
The one I'm sick of the most is, "I want to fight for you!"

I'm pretty sick of the statments on any proposed solutions that begin with the words "We have to..." and other such collectivist garbage.

[kraken]

Referenced from the Funk and Wagnals standard desk dictionary.

Democracy
1. A form of government in which political power resides in all the people and is excercised by them directly or is given to elected representatives.

2. A state so governed.

3. The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality.
from the greek demos (people) krateein (to rule)

Republic
A state in which the sovereignty resides in the people and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by them; also such a government.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is the social equality statement. As The US now conforms to the spirit of equality it can be said to be a democracy.

A further note taken from Dictionary.com states

Note: In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery.

As such you are now a Democratic Republic.

Do not confuse democracy with communism. Individuals rights are upheld within a democracy. You are still free to starve if you choose.

[Edited by kraken on 12-10-2000 at 04:41 AM]

[troysvihl]

those definitions are hardly a complete description of democracy or republicanism.


>>Individuals rights are upheld within a democracy<<

no that isn't correct at all. in a democracy, there is no recognition of anything other than majority will.




analyse the words "Democratic Republic." "Democratic" being an adjective and "Republic" being the noun. We are a Republic that has Democratic charicteristics, but we ARE a Republic first.

[kraken]

Do you describe a fast car as car fast.

The adjective comes before the noun. The historical timeline has little to do with the descriptive term.

I live in a Democracy that is not a republic. The individuals rights are held as important.

The majority will is only to the legislature as in your country. There is little difference between the two definitions.

A group of people cannot take over your property (by vote) and declare it a park as that would be against the individuals right to home and the freedom to own. This can only be done by governments with justification and due compensation.

Can your government take land from individuals for the benefit of all with just compensation. It can. (read your constitution).

The constitution of a country sets the boundaries of what its collective can and cannot do.

Your Republic is based on the collective (states) co-operation to maintain and go forward. Not too different from us as one of our states wanted to disassociate themselves from the rest of OZ. After spending Billions over many years (eastern states building), the resource rich state of Western Australia decided that we should have no part of its mineral wealth. They did not succeed in reforming to a new country.

The original point being that you are a republic and not a democracy is minimal in its arguement. Yes you are a Republic with democratic principles, ergo a democratic republic.

[AlwaysUp]

6 of 1....or 1/2 doz. of nuther! Agree to disagree.

[stylin19]

kraken

nice try, but i still can't reconcile any of your logic. your "..social equality statement .." ( whatever that means) has no bearing on how we allow ourselves to be governed. Any social aspect of it comes into play by WHO we allow to govern us.

Our 10th amendment determines the order.

10th amendment

"Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

No matter how YOU perceive us, you cannot define us, nor can you describe us as a democracy.
We allow our constituion to define us..as a republic.

[Liberty]

''I pledge allegience to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.''
Amen.

[kraken]

Either way you choose to look at it the similarities are there.

Whether it be federal or state the people rule by choice of electives.

The social equity statement merely refers to the potential difference between a democracy and a republic.

A Republic does not have to have social equity whereas a democracy does.

Do you have social equity (or at least the spirit). If you don't then you are guilty of human rights violations and should be condemned.

All men are created equal (all people if you want to be politically correct).

[Liberty]

Kraken, you are correct when you say the similarities are there.

The similarities are also present between a tiger and a lion, yet they are not one in the same.

Thank God this is not a rise with the tide mob rules democracy, though-for this nation, however it is currently faulted, really has a better system than that of Rome and Greece, or anywhere else.

A Republic does not have to have social equity whereas a democracy does.

In this Republic, all are free to make the choices to do the right things to become as socially "equal" or as "unequal" as one chooses (sucessful business owner, or bus driver, or factory worker-all equal humans, all important positions, but not all in an equal social circle). Human Rights and equality are granted by God, social rights are chosen and earned by the individual.

So, do we have social equality or not? Shall the U.S. be condemned by preserving rights to the individual to choose their own way?

[kraken]

The social equity is one from law. A bus driver has equal status in the eyes of the law as that of a Media Mogul.

Social status is a perception in the eyes of the beholder. One who *walks tall* in social gatherings will (may) belittle the worker who goes to the pub after work (and visa versa). Our social status is that which our peers place us in. I am as equal as the person with the 24 bedroom mansion, even if I live in a hovel.

Bill Gates is just another bloke who happens to have a few quid.

The reality is quite different from the theory, those with *social standing* often get away with things based on the inherent prejudices of the humans who make up the judgment aspect of the law. However if one chooses to fight based upon the law and the constitution anyone can win if their arguement is well thought out and implemented.

Liberty the site you are placing in your posts is a politically motivated site based not on facts, but the prejudices of the single minded party. It has its right to say what it says but it is not unbiased in its commentary.

I neither agree or disagree with it as a whole. I will agree on some points but not on others. There is no one telling me what to think, I know my own self.

[troysvihl]

what exactly do you mean by "social equity"? If you mean that all people are born with the same inherent rights and those rights being unchanging, then I would agree.

I ask b/c there are quite a few people out there that believe that "social equity" means that poor people have the right to other people's property. And I completely reject that view.

[Liberty]

Kraken,
Thanks for the comments on the site. No, it's not unbiased. Nothing political can be unbiased! as far as the reporting goes, just fightin' fire with fire. The U.S. media is a huge liberal propaganda machine and many (MANY) of us are sick of them.

Troysvihl:
I ask b/c there are quite a few people out there that believe that "social equity" means that poor people have the right to other people's property. And I completely reject that view.

Thank God for views like yours or else "Hillary's Villiage" would be raising our children!

[troysvihl]

liberty - thanks. I'm less worried about hillary's book than I am about Marx's books. His poorly thought out thesis lay the foundation for all that forced collectavist nonsense.

[Edited by troysvihl on 12-11-2000 at 05:34 PM]

[LawyerRon]

Troy,
I happen to be a Marxist Capitalist.

[troysvihl]

a marxist capitalist? does that mean you feel resentment against yourself while you keep the proletariats under your ever-crushing control?

[LawyerRon]

I don't know. I just made that up.

[troysvihl]

lol. i thought you were being facetious but I wasn't sure.

I've acctually met people on the net that label themselves capitalistic socialists. The net seems to attract all sorts of fringe beliefs. (myself included)

Like any political label, it seems to vary a bit depending on who you're talking to. But generally it means a person who thinks socialism is a great thing, but they don't want to force others to live in such a system. They envision living in a capitalistic system, but they want to get together with a few thousand or million of their closest socialist friends and live in communes. Kinka like a bunch of hippies living in communes together. So they are collectavists, just not FORCED collectavists.

Personally, I have no problem with such a system. I just despise FORCED collectavists. I could care less if peole want to voluntarily live in such a system, but I don't want to be forced to do so. I'm to much of an individualist.

[kraken]

Troysville
"what exactly do you mean by "social equity"? If you mean that all people are born with the same inherent rights and those rights being unchanging, then I would agree."


That is exactly what I mean about social equity.

It is not that far into the past when this was not the case. It was not until 1969 that the indigenous population of my country got to vote and be accepted as citizens.

"I ask b/c there are quite a few people out there that believe that "social equity" means that poor people have the right to other people's property. And I completely reject that view."

That is not social equity that is socialism.

Every country will have its proponents for socialism, generally socialism is to the benefit of the working class as they can benefit more from the profits of their labour. It is generally opposed by those who have control of the capital. The rich could not be the rich if not for the poor.

Personally I don't like the greed factor that comes with capitalism, however everyone should benefit from their own labours. The capitalism model works because of the nature of humans, it is our basic instinct to hoarde and collect, money is just another thing to collect. Socialistic forms of existance will only happen when the human race as a whole can get past this basic instinct. (Money=Power)

Social capitalism is the practice of profiting from your labours but not to the detriment of those who help to generate the income and the environment where you produce. Some multinational corporations generate huge profits from the cheap labour from 3rd world countries while paying subsistance wages, and utilising (abusing) the countries substandard minimum working conditions and environment laws.

Some companies have been saved from bankruptcy by instigating a fairer deal for their workers, a motivated worker (well paid and with a share of the profits generated) is worth far more (productivity) than a worker who is paid a flat rate and works in appalling conditions.

Saw a story not long ago about an engineering company who paid all their workers $100,000 per annum, the company has little productivity loss from sick days and has a very loyal and stable workforce.

Collectivism: A system in which the people as a whole, or the state, own and control the material and the means of production and distribution. (Funk and Wagnels Standard Desk Dictionary)

I don't like collectivism as it implies that you will not be able to develop your own environment to your own way and would have to get permission to to anything. Sounds a lot like communism but on a smaller scale.

Everyone seems to have their own definitions for a given label. I try to look at things by the very meaning of the term used and am not swayed by political (partisan) definitions.


[Edited by kraken on 12-12-2000 at 10:09 AM]

[troysvihl]

>>Every country will have its proponents for socialism, generally socialism is to the benefit of the working class as they can benefit more from the profits of their labour.<<

I would argue that socialism (in the political sense) is detrimental to the working class.


>>The rich could not be the rich if not for the poor.<<


That's completly false. Becoming rich does not mean that someone else has become poor.

[kraken]

The rich can only be rich due to the profiting from the labour of the lower paid. If everyone was rich who would be left to collect the garbage.

It is a relative arguement concerning the wage disparities and the need to keep workers at the lower end of the pay scale so that they cannot get ahead and so need to continue to work in low paid employment that distinguishes them from the rich.

When you are in a catch22 situation, it is very hard to break the cycle. Low paid workers have little or no income that they can invest to increase their monetary wealth. To re-educate so as to get a higher paying job is possible, but it still requires that the majority of people are needed at the low end, to support those on the higher incomes. There are only so many high paid jobs available, with incomes in the middle to high end increasing out of proportion to that of the low end, the disparity only grows larger.

The latest figures (local) show executive salaries have increased by 67% while worker wages have only increased by about 7%. They justify it by using the "talent costs" arguement.

Socialism in the political sense is still vulnerable to the need for power. This has been seen in communist countries where those in power have all the benefits while the proletariats just get by.