Come Monday the Senate will consider S.J. Res. 19. a proposed Constitutional Amendment authored by Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders (a long-in-the-tooth Democrat and the only Socialist Party senator — from New Hampshire, of course! :) ) that — well, it's quite short -if you ignore the strike-out of last year's version!- and I'll give it to you in its entirety:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
(I've removed the italics… the earlier version can be read here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf).)
So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed! :)
As previously, the 3rd section is a sop: Un-explained and un-enforceable, music to "soothe a savage Breast"…
Well this thread could be a touch of satire or perhaps a wish for democracy in the land of the money barons control. However there are decent people over there and I do hope that one day they will see a democratic future. Eisenhower was still right.......
Come Monday the Senate will consider S.J. Res. 19. a proposed Constitutional Amendment authored by Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders (a long-in-the-tooth Democrat and the only Socialist Party senator — from New Hampshire, of course! :) ) that —
Repeat after me - New Hampshire is not Vermont.
well, it's quite short -if you ignore the strike-out of last year's version!- and I'll give it to you in its entirety:‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
(I've removed the italics… the earlier version can be read here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf).)
So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed! :)
... which does not in any way follow from the quoted text. Surprise :rolleyes:
Well this thread could be a touch of satire or perhaps a wish for democracy in the land of the money barons control. However there are decent people over there and I do hope that one day they will see a democratic future. Eisenhower was still right.......
Only in America, where corporations can officially vote.
Repeat after me - New Hampshire is not Vermont.
Mea culpa! Senator Sanders "represents" Vermont…
... which does not in any way follow from the quoted text. Surprise :rolleyes:
Of course
you don't see the connection,
Mac! That 1st Amendment "thing-y" isn't your cup of tea! Or should I say "stein of beer"? :)
@
Howie: Democracy is
your ideal, not mine. The more democratic we become here, the more we reap the ruin democracy has always sown… Insolvency, ennui and eventual tyranny.
Needless to say, moneyed interests easily make use of a permanent ruling class!
Note what Section 1. specifies: Neither Congress nor the States need to "regulate and set limits" -reasonable or otherwise; "influence" is a keen word for a dull concept.
Section 2. repeats the vagueness of Section 1., but hints at those "entities" whose "influence" should be curbed. It's grant of power requires the repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Section 3. is actually my favorite: It obviates the first two… Or is a nullity itself.
Section 3. is actually my favorite: It obviates the first two… Or is a nullity itself.
Since you are a hater of democracy, the entire proposition should be your favourite - it promotes anarchy!
Oh, I don't hate democracy — I simply reject it, as a viable form of enduring government… A people accustomed to the liberties described in the U.S. Constitution (many of which were considered ancient rights of Englishmen long before our nation's founding…) cannot both keep them and accept majority rule as the ideal.
Anarchy would not be the direct result of this proposed Amendment: Despotism would precede it. And, surely you'd agree, despotism can persist indefinitely?! :)
Oh, I don't hate democracy — I simply reject it, as a viable form of enduring government… A people accustomed to the liberties described in the U.S. Constitution (many of which were considered ancient rights of Englishmen long before our nation's founding…) cannot both keep them and accept majority rule as the ideal.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhuWSrhp.png&hash=c4ecf66400a71dd71883016307af2d88" rel="cached" data-hash="c4ecf66400a71dd71883016307af2d88" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/huWSrhp.png)
I agree.
Democracy in it's purest form must be rejected in total. Utter & complete majority rule (mob rule -- Mobocracy)
will soon see the nation's minority forever cast down without political recourse, that is until they somehow find enough
disgruntled, & disenchanted members of
today's majority to join them to form tomorrow's
'new' majority.
Failing this the minority would be doomed to eternal political despair, & under total domination of the majority.
This relentless
political tug-of-war will finally consume the nation, & doom it's citizens to a continual state of chaos -- until tyranny is eventually hired to
'save' them
That's why when our Government in the United States of America was instituted in the late 1700's,
it was formed as a [glow=blue,2,300]
Constitutional Republic, [/glow] based on democratic principals, but definitely not a Democracy.
The purpose of a
Constitutional Republic is to place
limits on the tyranny of the majority.
A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States. However in recent years, many people have criticized the federal government for moving away from a Constitutional Republic, as defined by the Constitution, and towards a pure democracy........Continued Here (http://www.conservapedia.com/Constitutional_Republic)
What did some of the Founding Fathers, who wrote our United States Constitution, think & feel about democracy? Actually, The Founding Fathers didn’t believe in democracy as a valid form of government .....Amid all the rhetoric about democracy and freedom, one thing remains firmly outside the fragile collective memory of the U.S.
I’m talking about the oft-ignored origins of the political system of the U.S. The “founding fathers” actually never conceived of democracy as the main or ultimate goal of their constitution. The independence sentiment was couched in freedom, but this was freedom from the British Crown and their policies. What their criterion allowed was actually distinguishing between democracy and republicanism, cleaving mainly to the latter.
The topic under discussion before and beyond the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was the intensity with which the people would intervene in the affairs of government. After obtaining her freedom from the British Empire, these men felt they should be protected from a greater problem, in its nature, to the previous one: the people. They would need to preserve this precious virtue — freedom — against the whims and “licentious wishes” of its people themselves.
Many signatories of the Declaration of Independence and other architects of the recent nation were vehement opponents of democracy. One of them was John Adams, who in his laborious contribution warned that democratic systems of government had historically always ended in tyranny and chaos.
The defect in the democratic system occurs when we confuse the procedure of democracy (effective to select our rulers), with the idea of democracy as a system of government. The Founders conceived the democratic system as merely a procedure to give themselves a Republic, which ensured their most precious value, freedom from the British and ability to seek their happiness..........Continued Here (http://tinyurl.com/2u4hohz)
Not until we all realize & understand that the United States of America is not a
'Democracy', but a Constitutional Republic as designed by it's Founding Fathers, will we all begin to understand what is meant by the ambiguous term
American Democracy.
The two of you have skirted this issue for years without being able to answer what you put into a "republic", so it is good you finally got a thread. To begin with: Are there any current country in the world which is a democracy but not a "republic" by your definition? Is there any republic that is not a democracy?
Our constitutional republic is a form of representative government constrained by the rule of law, of which the constitution is the penultimate source. The People are the ultimate source, i.e., their consent is necessary; when such is withdrawn, revolution is the result — be it peaceable or violent.
(No serious student of our government thinks a constitutional convention isn't a revolution!)
Plebiscetary democracy doesn't "scale"…and majority rule is an insufficient basis for a peacefully diverse population. Oligarchy -whether hereditary or meritocratic- and monarchy -likewise- have always struggled to maintain the consent of the people, and to secure peaceful transitions between regimes (I use the term in the non-pejorative sense…). The implementation of the popular will can be accommodated by most forms of government; but ours attempts to proscribe its limits first.
Some have always thought that unworkable. Some have felt constrained unreasonably by such. Over the years, many have tried to subvert it. We are far from where we started; and in many ways closer to where we wanted to be — although in some, farther away.
One of our enduring "innovations" was the separation of powers: Executive, legislative (in a bi-cameral form), and judicial; our federalism. Of course, others had pioneered such. But we've kept them! More than anything else, I'd say that this design accommodates conservatism: Nothing works too quickly for the polity to assimilate to — usually; as the society changes, government follows.
In parliamentary governments, the "loyal opposition" are bench-sitters, waiting for power. In ours, power is intended to be diffused enough to encourage accommodation between opponents, lest nothing get done… But, to our way of thinking, doing nothing is often the best course, the surest tack to take:
Whither the ship of state? No one knows, and
no one is meant to: Only that it not
founder or beach itself! There was a thought
long ago of Atlantis, that far land
of great achievement… Nay! Perfection! But,
of course, it sank beneath the waves and is
no more. Only legends remain, vague his-
tory without evidence, the plain What
drowned in murky deeps! The Hows precluded
by a lack of testimony, a dearth
of witnesses; the depth of the not-earth
being still too far beneath our feuded
norms of getting along… And heaven still
too far above us, and beyond our will.
As the junior Adams said, our nation is an experiment; we would be the friends of liberty everywhere, but the protectors of only our own! I'd agree, that the idea of democracy (in any formulation) is NOT an essentially human aspiration, NOT a requirement for good and just government… Certainly not our "cause" — we shouldn't seek dragons to slay!
I was speaking of parliamentary structured governments… Only their presumptions or pretensions of constitutions prevents them from becoming despotisms.
Why should a vote of "no confidence" require the current rulers to recuse themselves? On whose authority?
Some countries maintain a monarchy for just that eventuality: Should the legislative/executive branch not respond, legal transition of government has still a traditional form.
The two of you have skirted this issue for years without being able to answer what you put into a "republic", so it is good you finally got a thread. To begin with: Are there any current country in the world which is a democracy but not a "republic" by your definition? Is there any republic that is not a democracy?
1. Interesting question. I honestly don't know. I suggest if it's something important to you, you might do a simple search to look it up -- Google it maybe. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F15iZKjO.png&hash=1f08a31f46f034ab20fadfe30c09bbec" rel="cached" data-hash="1f08a31f46f034ab20fadfe30c09bbec" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/15iZKjO.png)
2. Again I honestly don't know, but when you find the answer to your first question, I would think you'd probably get very close to the answer for this question too.
Knowing both of the answers to your questions while interesting, really have little, if anything at all IMHO, to do with Democracy in America as relative to this thread's OP. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/smileys/confused.png)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0GhBTd3.png&hash=9a42a8627821f733ba92209bb201a708" rel="cached" data-hash="9a42a8627821f733ba92209bb201a708" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/0GhBTd3.png) If you wish, I'd appreciate, & I think everyone else reading this will too, if you would post your findings here for everyone to see, thanks. :)
If you wish, I'd appreciate, & I think everyone else reading this will too, if you would post your findings here for everyone to see, thanks.
If you're askin' me: I'm just talkin' to myself, and swattin' flies! A great many Europeans cannot understand an egalitarian system that doesn't enforce egalitarianism… We couldn't -try though we sometimes did- establish or maintain a class system. (The closest we came was the Antebellum South.) Our genius was to go our own way.
If you're asking
jax, I'd say he hasn't been here yet… :) (Try again, in a decade or two!)
I'd say the requirements of good government are
- How to get what you want
- How to keep what you have
- How to discern what you need
- And how to mediate between these…
I think that's a thoroughly American formulation: The focus on procedure is important!
....The focus on procedure is important!
Especially if you're shooting the diamonds out of a ace at 600 yards with only 3 rounds, but that's a story for another day. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif)
Since you haven't answered in years, it isn't so surprising that you would make a number of new posts skirting the issue. I can condense it more if you like, to anglophone (mostly) countries.
Is the USA a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Canada a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Australia a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is the UK a republic (yes/no/partially)?
If answering partially, please say which parts are unrepublican.
If answering no, please say what exactly would exclude that country from being a republic.
(BTW, my response would be:
USA: Yes
Canada: Partially
Australia: Partially
UK: No
That is based on the traditional division of republic/monarchy, and to what extent Elizabeth 2.0 is head of state of Australia and Canada. For practical purposes it would be Yes/Yes/Yes/Partially though.)
Kind of pedantic of you anyway OakdaleFTL as democracy has been oft talked about there but never been really fulfilled. From the tea party dumping the tea (cumfy family people actually) onwards it was really monied business minded people that really pulled the strings.Whern George Washington once seen an officer knocking a bit of a rock stone wall being knocked he got off to put the boulders back on and keep it as it was. If he had got off the horse to belabour democracy the man would never have got on it again!
There has been consant internal political wars over the constitution, interpretation has become a trench warfare but the further down the chain you go the worse if has been for so many in the population if not of that "cumfy" background. At the same time your mindset and that of SmileyFaze has fully shown that many are not really interested in democracy and as long as they are okay that is fine. At the same time this contradicts what is on paper and at least you have a degree of perturbing honesty. Got a low paid job? Maybe two or three just to exist? struggling to maintain a roof over your head? Well forget any chance of being shown concern by the Oakdale or Smiley ruling corner behind the sense. To summate...hypocrisy!
If answering partially, please say which parts are unrepublican.
If answering no, please say what exactly would exclude that country from being a republic.
If Oakdale's and SmileyFaze's "interpretations" on both Republic and Democracy concepts represents the dominating American erudite views about it, and maybe that's what's happening, then in my opinion they are working hard for the creation of a new variant of Italian Fascist
Republica (while probably believing they are being very original and unique...).
Just ninety years late and so much more in a rudimentary way. It explains many things and should be published at all major European newspapers. I can imagine people's face while reading it... :)
The proposed amendment less to do with Democracy and more to do with special interest groups all but buying elections. With decisions such as Citizens United, the collision course with crypto-fascism in Mussolini the sense (a collusion of state and corporate power) is accelerating. Funny fearing loss of representative government to the oh-so-terrible Democracy, while blasting efforts to preserve it.
so ..
what are the Oppositional partijs roles in the constitutional republic of America , exactly ?
in the elementary theories of constitutional Republic , and in reality .
The proposed amendment less to do with Democracy and more to do with special interest groups all but buying elections. With decisions such as Citizens United, the collision course with crypto-fascism in Mussolini the sense (a collusion of state and corporate power) is accelerating. Funny fearing loss of representative government to the oh-so-terrible Democracy, while blasting efforts to preserve it.
That the Republicans (in the sense of Republican Party supporters) confuses
Democracy with Democrat Party and
Republic with Republican Party and therefore enters into a stage of hallucination, that's something that I have no doubts.
What I'm not sure is if Democrat Party supporters don't do the same. :)
Anyway, if American, I would stand for the Republican party however demanding my right to "tendency" (I don't know how you say it), meaning the right inside a political party to be opposition to the party's leadership. That's democracy, by the way.
Without State ratification it's not fair to call the US a republic at all. The original idea was to push lasting legislative changes thru the states, thus smaller government and closer to the people. Ratification of all legislation where the effects weren't temporary should have to pass some degree of ratification... Then we can talk about a republic. The tenth amendment was written so badly, force compromises and a war that killed any intended meaning, that we're left with some sort of democratic/aristocracy mess. Historically still not without hope
In a DEMOCRACY if you had a National Referendum on say State Religion, & the question put fourth was
Q. Are you in favor of Congress making a law for the XYZ Religion to be instituted as the recognized State Religion? Say 100 million voters voted.
If 50 million plus 1 voters voted for the XYZ Religion as the State Religion, Congress makes the law, it becomes law...The XYZ Religion becomes the State Religion......
The majority rules in a DEMOCRACY.
Now lets say that the same exact proposal were put fourth for a National vote here today in our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Then lets say you had the exact same result from the exact same amount of voters ---- 50 million plus one for, & the lesser amount against.
As opposed to a DEMOCRACY, the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC says the new proposed law must pass Constitutional Muster (conform with the Constitution) in order to become law.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, because it doesn't pass Constitutional Muster, the law can't be passed by Congress, & the XYZ Religion is not established as the State Religion.
The Majority of voters, as in a DEMOCRACY, can not therefore authorize the proposed law.
In order for that to happen the Constitution would have to be changed/re-written by the process for doing so as outlined in
Article V of the Constitution.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Congress must submit a new Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, rewriting the First Amendment regarding Establishment of Religion, stating it has the authority to establish a State Religion upon the outcome of a National Referendum.
The Senate & The House must then both pass that proposed amendment by a 2/3 vote (Super Majority Vote).
If passed in Congress, the proposed amendment is submitted to all 50 States, whereas 3/4 of the States must pass the proposed amendment & return it to Congress to become part of the Constitution & thereby become law.
I hope that simple example clarifies the process of DEMOCRACY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
Congress must submit a new Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, rewriting the First Amendment regarding Establishment of Religion, stating it has the authority to establish a State Religion upon the outcome of a National Referendum.
The Senate & The House must then both pass that proposed amendment by a 2/3 vote (Super Majority Vote).
If passed in Congress, the proposed amendment is submitted to all 50 States, whereas 3/4 of the States must pass the proposed amendment & return it to Congress to become part of the Constitution & thereby become law.
I hope that simple example clarifies the process of DEMOCRACY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
Yeah, but it doesn't happen. Or if it did , as it should.
what i understand , Democracy is not anarchy , Republic nor Monarchy .
but somehow it can be combined with Republic or Monarchy .
in the surface it can be seen , from the Election .
where there are election , there are also democracy .
as example , in the Constitutional Monarchy like UK there is PM Election as the Head of the Government .
'Mericans do not have Monarch , or generally speaking -- Disable it .
and only have Government .
so...
fabulously , it is just there are President , Representative nor senate election .
btw, any 'mericans please answer my question about - the Opposition partijs .
democracy but not a "republic" , and republic that is not a democracy?
it seems any Republical state , can disregard the Democracy .
i guess there is no Democracy at all when A Nation only have one partij .
since basically, the ideas of Democracy are =
from people , by people, to people .not to mention , The people are those who Paid the Government sallaries .
not vice versa .
Logically , The people are those which supposedly got the Power .
not the Government .
leave only one partij , aint give the People choice to choose their Head of the State .
that will ended in the result = The People Have no Power to choose who will they choose then pay as their employee's .
Democracy but not a Republic = Democracy in the monarchy
Republic but not a democracy = Autocracy-Republic aka Dictatorial-Republic
Regarding @Belgrager's comment on the two parties, on behalf of the under 30's here, I can say clearly and with a clear conscience that both parties have betrayed my generation.
I am at the point of favoring bringing out the guillotine and clearing out all 3 branches of gov't, and then hauling the guillotine to MS and doing the same.
I have a growing hatred of the Baby Boomers; they have royally mucked things up for "The Greatest Generation" preceding them, and the generations following them (BB). I thank nature that their savior and greatest cheerleader (Ronald Wilson Reagan) is in his current state so he can do no further harm to this country. His policies, however, still permeate and poison this country.
/end rant
Congress must submit a new Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, rewriting the First Amendment regarding Establishment of Religion, stating it has the authority to establish a State Religion upon the outcome of a National Referendum.
The Senate & The House must then both pass that proposed amendment by a 2/3 vote (Super Majority Vote).
If passed in Congress, the proposed amendment is submitted to all 50 States, whereas 3/4 of the States must pass the proposed amendment & return it to Congress to become part of the Constitution & thereby become law.
I hope that simple example clarifies the process of DEMOCRACY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
Yeah, but it doesn't happen. Or if it did , as it should.
[glow=blue,2,300]
Cut & Dry Facts: [/glow]
There have been [glow=green,2,300]
33 [/glow]proposed Amendments to the US Constitution proposed & passed through Congress,
then presented to the States..... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Of those [glow=green,2,300]
33 [/glow]proposed Amendments, the States passed [glow=green,2,300]
27[/glow], which then became law. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
If any proposals fail in Congress
*, then it can't get out to the States for them to vote on.
* Approximately
11,539 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through January 2, 2013,
but failed in Congress. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Amending the Constitution has been successful [glow=green,2,300]
5 times [/glow]since
1960. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
SOURCE (http://tinyurl.com/5pf38k)
IMHO, it looks like the process is working just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers --- by far
not impossible, but not exactly too easy either --- & rightfully so, again IMHO.
Remember: The process itself can be changed too, as provided for in
Article V .Please clarify what you mean?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
I have a growing hatred of the Baby Boomers.....
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends.gif) I'm a Baby Boomer, care to settle this, winner walks away healthy, at 1000 yards with my weapon of choice? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Honestly, I feel your pain.................................but, present company excluded,
[glow=green,2,300]
Over 20 million voters under 30[/glow] didn't even care enough to vote in 2008, & furthermore the under 30 voting group
comprises of over 20% of all eligible voters.
* (http://projectvote.org/youth-voting-.html)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif) Enough to make a big difference -- to do a lot, if they got off their lil asses, & actually showed they cared. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
IMHO, sounds like a big time motivational problem, not a Baby Boomer problem..............Yes? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif)
Me thinks that be where your anger should be vented towards........
I have voted at every available opportunity. So, kindly spare me the propaganda piece, thanks.
No, it sounds like y'all need to remove your mouths from Reagan's rotting carcass and acknowledge the failure of voodoo economics. Likewise, liberals also need to realize and acknowledge Keynesian economics have also failed.
As a large beneficiary of said voodoo economics, I don't expect you to acknowledge its failure.
Honestly, I feel your pain.................................but, present company excluded,
I have voted at every available opportunity. So, kindly spare me the propaganda piece, thanks.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-forum%2Fstop.gif&hash=72193d4d3758b6900b89739774b4f61f" rel="cached" data-hash="72193d4d3758b6900b89739774b4f61f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/stop.gif) You weren't the focus Nick, ......I know better, & I specifically made note for you to see I do. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
Guess you missed that.
You're off base with the rest, unless you feel otherwise, & I somehow deserve your
'personal' ire & condemnation ??
Honestly, I feel your pain.................................but, present company excluded,
I have voted at every available opportunity. So, kindly spare me the propaganda piece, thanks.
You weren't the focus Nick, ......I know better, & I specifically made note for you to see I do. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
You're off base with the rest, unless you feel otherwise, & I somehow deserve your 'personal' ire & condemnation ??
Having re-read it, I see my mistake, and offer you my apologies. I am sorry, SmileyFaze.
I have had a rather rough past 4 days (even on my birthday) and have turned to DnD as something to get my mind off of stuff.
I shouldn't have directed anything at you, and again, I apologize. Reading political stuff only makes me angrier, and in truth I should probably stay away from it.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends01.gif) No worries mate, we all been down those bad roads one time er 'nother.
Just remember, whatever doesn't kill ya, makes ya stronger.... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
BTW ........ Belated Happy Birthday......Soon yer gunna be an ole fart just like RJ......just betta lookin, smarter, & all around more humane!
Since you haven't answered in years, it isn't so surprising that you would make a number of new posts skirting the issue. I can condense it more if you like, to anglophone (mostly) countries.
Is the USA a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Canada a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Australia a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is the UK a republic (yes/no/partially)?
If answering partially, please say which parts are unrepublican.
If answering no, please say what exactly would exclude that country from being a republic.
The USA, yes… But increasingly approaching the other alternative.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became little more than the UK's House of Lords… (The effect of "popular election" was to dissipate the influence of state legislatures and governors. Thus was the 10th Amendment, finally, obviated!) Similarly, the Executive branch has -by its numerous Agencies, Bureaus and Departments- encroached upon matters great and small, simply because they can. And, of course, there are examples of the Judiciary's excesses…
If these qualms don't give you quivers, you're either far removed from their effects or far more complaisant with their entrenchment.
Please note: When most Americans speak of our Republic, we mean: A constitutional, presidential, separation-of-powers, federalist
thing-a-ma-bob…! You're excused, if you don't readily understand. And we're excused, if we can't quite make you… :)
Canada, no. It is a parliamentary system — the ruling party is entitled to rule! The fact that they're -usually- smarter than to allow that doesn't obviate the procedures in place; similarly, their recourse to the monarchy is problematical.
Australia is a difficult case: Much commonality (at least, terminologically…) with our system should make me say "yes" — but the 1975 episode clearly requires a "no"…
Like other Commonwealth nations, they're allowed self-government — in their kiddie-sand lot. The "adults" step in, when things get fractious.
The UK is the exemplar of parliamentary government. It is not and likely never will be a republic. Their history of class divisions will always "inform" their politics, either in ascendence, decadence or reaction.
The "problem" with parliamentary systems is that they try to approximate majority rule.
No doubt, I've not satisfied you,
jax: You want me to explain our way of life — by giving a glib
definition of a single term,
republic… Our history shows that we've not secured such a simplistic explanation.
But, when contrasted with another often-thought-to-be synonymous term,
democracy, we bristle! And you become confused… (Or think
us un-sophisticated! If you're aware of that word's dirivation, you know we're not offended. :) ) To us, democracy is synonymous with majority rule. And that principle is odious, since it doesn't comport with liberty — except accidentally: We meant to be deliberate…
* Approximately 11,539 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through January 2, 2013,
but failed in Congress. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Amending the Constitution has been successful 5 times since 1960.
For just a second let's pretend I know how the amendment process works.
I'm sure presidential succession, voting age and congressional paychecks are all important stuff. But my comment meant to point out that more laws than just amendments should have to be ratified to gain a republic. Congress should have the ability to pass legislation with an expiration date but, for example, far reaching laws like The Patriot Act should have to be ratified before it expires or it's gone.
* Approximately 11,539 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through January 2, 2013,
but failed in Congress. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Amending the Constitution has been successful 5 times since 1960.
For just a second let's pretend I know how the amendment process works.
I'm sure presidential succession, voting age and congressional paychecks are all important stuff. But my comment meant to point out that more laws than just amendments should have to be ratified to gain a republic. Congress should have the ability to pass legislation with an expiration date but, for example, far reaching laws like The Patriot Act should have to be ratified before it expires or it's gone.
I don't disagree .............................. I agree.......................to a point.
That point depends upon constitutionality.
If a passed law it deemed Unconstitutional, then it should be simply deemed null & void.
In such circumstances, if there is strong desire to have such a law re-instituted, the only way I see that that should be possible, being the original law was already deemed unconstitutional, is via a Constitutional Amendment, .
I would also submit the reverse is also true.......to a point.
If a Constitutionally valid law is found to be extremely unpopular, & there comes a movement afoot to remove that law, the simple remedy would be to limit it's term to sunset within a specified time, or better yet by a simple majority vote, remove the law.
Failing both, the law --- being it has been deemed Constitutional --- remains the law, with all the force of law, until a successful move to repeal it is passed in Congress & signed by the President.
Now, more on Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic. (http://bit.ly/WSVQvT)
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.
Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself.
John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."
Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other.
A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual.
For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority.
The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers..................Continued
Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority through limited government, based on the rule of law -- a Constitution.
That's what it's all about ............. that's what America was founded to be all about ......... IMHO, & from what I've read, in the honest opinion of our American Founding Fathers too.
Do you believe otherwise?
If so, why?
Sir, isn't Constitutional-Republic is just simply Republic-Democracy ?
Since AFAIK ..
democracy =
--government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
--a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
--a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
--political or social equality; democratic spirit.
--the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Republic = a state in which the head of government is not a King , aka Monarch
and democracy is Democracy .
Constitutional = Meh ... Even Monarchy , autocracy , Anarchy , or Traditiocracy have some Constitution .
Written or unwritten .
well ..
i dont know what are the movations to Conflict that republic vs democracy .
in the U.S there are two partijs , Republican and Democrat .
and i cant stop my mind to not suspect it as somekind of campaign .
:monkey:
When most Americans speak of our Republic, we mean: A constitutional, presidential, separation-of-powers, federalist thing-a-ma-bob…!
Constitutional - someone explain the Americans how many Monarchies are Constitutional.
Presidential - as if presidentialism was a requisite for a being a republic.... Most republic are either parliamentary or semi-presidential.
Separation of powers - My goodness, do they live at pre history to consider such as exclusive of republics?
Thing-a-ma-bob - that must be exclusive of the American "republic", no clue about what it is.
Another thread to endless discuss amendments of amendments of amendments while praying to the "founding fathers" (everybody stand up, please) for their perfect vision of the future...
Ah, I forgot Federalist... better not even bother with it.
I see, Belfrager, that you are miffed -- because your almost-200-years late (1976!) adoption of a somewhat similar form wasn't mentioned... Perhaps your next revolution or usurpation will bring your country's politics to the forefront! :)
Oakdale, Oakdale... you're not asking me to show your ignorance in the matter are you? :)
Believe me, much better for you to stick with American, let's call it, "originalities".
When able to answer to my demonstration of the crass mistake Americans do with republic and democracy notions, please let me know.
Perhaps -- after you explain to me why so many "intelligent" people become contrary and disputatious, when they obviously have nothing to say! :)
this kind of issues make me have some Questions .
the U.S is somekind of Republic With some taste of Democracy .
The People that Lived in that territories , Theorically allowed to do anything about How Their Government Run .
if the People of America really wish to Disable the democracy .
Then Why not just Propose some amandment to Disable That ?
Remove the Election , the Partijs , etc .
and just leave the Republic without Democracy .
if the Congress Decided to Do that , and Legalized it in somekind of Constitutional Court .
Fabulously , Even a President cannot Reject that Constitution .
If he/she insist to reject it , then he/she is deserves an impeachment . :sherlock:
.....if the People of America really wish to Disable the democracy .
Then Why not just Propose some amandment to Disable That ?......
Remove the Election , the Partijs , etc .
and just leave the Republic without Democracy .
if the Congress Decided to Do that , and Legalized it in somekind of Constitutional Court .
Fabulously , Even a President cannot Reject that Constitution .
If he/she insist to reject it , then he/she is deserves an impeachment .
Simple....it can be done......All they need to do is follow the procedure set out in
Article V of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) to do so.....
All it would take is a Constitution Amendment..........in this case a few amendments..........Get 2/3's of Congress to agree to it/them.....then get 3/4's of all the States to vote & pass it/them.........It's Done!! .... Simple, a walk in the park. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
There you have it Sparta.....all that you need to change anything you want in the United States of America at your fingertips.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became little more than the UK's House of Lords…
What right-wing idiocy told you this? That makes it the opposite of the mostly appointed House of Lords who can sit for life with no chance of being voted out. The 10th amendment is as follows:
The 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.
This is not obviated by popular election of senators.
The purpose of the Senate, with equal representation of the various states, of representing the States as the "People's House" represents the populace, is diminished; to the vanishing point, some say…
(And, yes, before you say it: I'm aware of the corruption and political connivances and "deficiencies" that -historically- made such a change seem sensible; but only on short-term political consideration… Geez! Even Wikipedia knows more about this than you… :) )
Next, you'll argue that the Electoral College must give way to popular election of the president and vice-president! (And blame its persistence on "right wing" idiocy.)
If it seems to you that we are deficient in democracy, note how many states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex "marriage"… There, you seem to understand the value of limiting democratic excess; we disagree, somewhat, on the issue — but I'd neither object to another state's contrary rule nor ask for the federal government to decide: The only acceptable path to a federal decision on the matter should be a Constitutional Amendment.
No? :)
You prefer czars and bureaucrats, judges and technocrats, to "decide" how we "get along" — which is to say, you'd be as authoritarian as you can get away with! Your libertarian veneer, and your new-found acceptance of the 2nd Amendment, doesn't convince me, that you acquiesce in the norms and forms of our representative democracy (our "republic"): You want what you want; and you'll reject any principle, if it can get you it.*
But perhaps you've changed? (Your way of arguing doesn't support such a conclusion…)
Forgive me, if some of you don't see the relevance of this exchange of views to the topic — it could as well have occurred in any number of threads…
We've (us Americans) always considered, in our more sedate moments, our form of government an experiment… :)
————————————————————————
* Can anyone give me a cite of Sang accepting "the will of the people" — when he disagrees with them? (Recent 2nd Amendment opinions don't count…)
after you explain to me why so many "intelligent" people become contrary and disputatious, when they obviously have nothing to say! :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=495.39;msg=27312)
That's exactly the reason why you have a constitution, to substitute the emptiness of not knowing what to say by the emptiness of the printed word, it's written so you can mention it. Nothing changes.
With just that little trick it's easy to make the people to believe that some sort of legitimacy can emanate from it. Basically it's getting a kind of Bible for politics in order to turn the thing apparently serious.
Since I defend a non constitutional Monarchy, the king being the "constitution" and where the soul of a nation can always remain a living reality and through the mechanisms of life to become perennial - a king for a generation, a dynasty for a nation, all this talk about constitutions is very irrelevant to me. Not so regarding republic and democracy.
Not even at Greek antiquity democracy was ever the rule of populace. In fact the majority of people couldn't even vote. Modern democracies are more or less the same although becoming the more machiavellian regime of all , but if you keep insisting on wrong concepts and definitions it's not possible to discuss.
Since I defend a non constitutional Monarchy, the king being the "constitution" and where the soul of a nation can always remain a living reality and through the mechanisms of life to become perennial - a king for a generation, a dynasty for a nation, all this talk about constitutions is very irrelevant to me. Not so regarding republic and democracy.
Take a tip from the Bolsheviks, they had the right idea when it came to Monarchies.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/2mafiahit01.gif) A bullet to the head of em all .... each & every one. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/2mafiahit01.gif)
A bullet to the head of em all .... each & every one.
:lol:
How could the founding fathers to forgot that part... without shooting monarchists that's not a true republic, is it? you need another amendment.
By the way, a bit of constitutionality classroom, if "We the people" is to be the base of all political legitimacy, then "we the people" will decide if they want a republic or a monarchy even more when in nowhere at the body of the initial constitution is expressed the USA to be a republic, it says the US will assure to each State a "Republican form of
government" which is not the same thing as declaring the US to be a Republican
regime.
In fact no one knows what a "republican form of government" is.
As for what amendments says you read them, not me. :)
And then there's democracy in Portugal!
"Influential figures who took part in the 1974 revolution - in which junior officers overthrew the government - boycotted the official anniversary for the third year in a row.
Government-organised celebrations also took place a short distance away from the protests."...from the BBC.
And then there's democracy in Portugal!
Ah, there you are, long time no see you. :)
Democracy in Portugal?? You're confusing, it's Kleptocracy we have here after that revolution, sounds slightly similar but it's different. (a coup d'etat, for being more precise, not a revolution)
Monarchy can work, Belfrager… :) But towards what end :)
That you don't understand America (the U.S. of…) is not problematic: You miss the 16th century! That your own country can't satisfy your nostalgic urges makes you an educated boob… In much the same way as you bemoan the changes in your language, you resent the political changes you've seen.
You'd rather have stayed, and died, in the womb? :)
That you don't understand America (the U.S. of…) is not problematic: You miss the 16th century!
Funny...
Most Europeans if not all of them would say that I understand the US of America too well...
Who's opinion counts? :)
16th century? a perfectly normal century, no special memory of that.
Much more important were older centuries.
............
The European/American rivalry it's very interesting and with many funny episodes but I want to say one thing about constitutions so people can realize where lies the true importance of certain documents instead of keep debating into exhaustion irrelevant thingies.
While not a formal Constitution, not even a Constitutional Letter, there's a document written back at the early 12th century when Portugal fought the Kingdom of Leon and turned independent. Our first King, King Afonso I, immediately reunited "Courts" for the fist time in Portugal, being present the three "states" - nobility, clergy and people.
They made a document, known as the "Shout of Almacave", that states this particular phrase:
We are free, our King is free and by our own hands we have liberated ourselves.
That, my friend, it's the only Constitution you'll ever need and generations to come never forget.
While not a formal Constitution, not even a Constitutional Letter, there's a document written back at the early 12th century when Portugal fought the Kingdom of Leon and turned independent. Our first King, King Afonso I, immediately reunited "Courts" for the fist time in Portugal, being present the three "states" - nobility, clergy and people.
They made a document, known as the "Shout of Almacave", that states this particular phrase:
We are free, our King is free and by our own hands we have liberated ourselves.
That, my friend, it's the only Constitution you'll ever need and generations to come never forget.
Another kind of constitution is a phrase in the Russian earliest chronicle, repeated by later chroniclers:
"Our land is wide and rich, but there's no order in it. Come and rule over us."This was said by Slavic (Russian) tribal ambassadors to the rulers of some people called Varjags in the land of "Rus'", assumed to be Vikings in Sweden. So three Viking princes came and this is how the land of Russians acquired its name and order :)
This was the beginning of the Rurik dynasty as chronicled. Russians of course are not fond of this history of their constitution at all and hide from it by decorating themselves with the Byzantian inheritance.
"Our land is wide and rich, but there's no order in it. Come and rule over us."
:lol:
Unfortunately for Portugal, rebelling against it's monarchy was a big historical mistake.
I wonder what America would be like if it had a genuine democracy?
Unfortunately for Portugal, rebelling against it's monarchy was a big historical mistake.
Better to look to your simulacrum of a dynasty before looking to others.
Our King died in an abject double regicide while exposing his chest and so did the heiring Prince to the criminal bullets, not the sad spectacle your dynasty gives to the world.
Don't start irritating me.
I wonder what America would be like if it had a genuine democracy?
It wouldn't have made it as far as it has. The problem with pure democracy is that it lasts only until the public realizes it can vote itself a largess, at which time the treasury goes broke.
We're nearly there now as it is, with the public and the politicians elected by the public failing to realize that money has to come from somewhere. You want all those goodies, somebody has to pay for that. So--- we have Democrats that never saw a spending program they didn't like, and Republicans who will vote for tax cuts every time they get power. What do you think will happen next?
Well it was your fellow countrymen dear poor Belfrager so don't get jealous or miffed. Your own doing.
Must say mjsmsprt40 America is not a real democracy it is a word used to falsely describe the present system. Two giant parties who ensure no-one else gets a look in and both funded by billions and no restriction. Small wonder as I said a time back that your President Eisenhower warned about the money men running things. That has happened. It is not just the poor working class over there who have to have more than one job in a fast food place or other it are those above them. Indeed the gap between has financially grown like Topsy to ridiculous proportions and something that wasn't as bad decades ago. Instead of spending money inside the country you spend it on a political and military empire striding the world. Pointless and utterly ridiculous when so many are suffering within. That Detroit is like it is (my separate thread) in a would-be progressive country is a disgrace and something that would happen in a Third World scenario.
Even watching how Red China has been improving itself so quickly (and you owe so much money too!) shows that the form og government is an arguable point! There are plenty of decent and sensible people over the pond but the nation has been hi-jacked by both big baron political parties and you just have to note that number of people big companies linking to their agents on the Hill runs into at least 5-figures. Mind you, i do feel for the decent and loyal who have seen their country manipulated by the money men and it is a disgrace that a basic decent people are being misused by the finance brigade for their own end and not the people nor country. Democracy has been hi-jacked!
I wonder what America would be like if it had a genuine democracy?
I don't know how many times you gotta be told, but contrary to your European opinion, we don't have,
nor do we want what is in your opinion a
'real' democracy. We've been doing just fine with our
Constitutional Republic for over 235 years, which is based on
basic democratic principals, but it is not a democracy by your European standards...... thank God ......it was
never,
ever meant to be from day one in 1776 ---- & that sits just fine with us too.
I don't know how many times you gotta be told, but contrary to your European opinion, we don't have, nor do we want what is in your opinion a 'real' democracy. We've been doing just fine with our Constitutional Republic for over 235 years, which is based on basic democratic principals, but it is not a democracy by your European standards...... thank God ......it was never, ever meant to be from day one in 1776 ---- & that sits just fine with us too.
Yeah, but his complaint (before the anti-american rant) was the influence of money and power on elections, which Eisenhower warned about (the military -industrial complex) and the fact that it's virtually impossible for anyone not identifying as a Democratic or Republican to hold national office. These are valid concerns.
....
The USA, yes… But increasingly approaching the other alternative.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became little more than the UK's House of Lords… (The effect of "popular election" was to dissipate the influence of state legislatures and governors. Thus was the 10th Amendment, finally, obviated!) Similarly, the Executive branch has -by its numerous Agencies, Bureaus and Departments- encroached upon matters great and small, simply because they can. And, of course, there are examples of the Judiciary's excesses…
If these qualms don't give you quivers, you're either far removed from their effects or far more complaisant with their entrenchment.
Please note: When most Americans speak of our Republic, we mean: A constitutional, presidential, separation-of-powers, federalist thing-a-ma-bob…! You're excused, if you don't readily understand. And we're excused, if we can't quite make you… :)
Canada, no. It is a parliamentary system — the ruling party is entitled to rule! [...]
Australia is a difficult case: [...]
The UK is the exemplar of parliamentary government. It is not and likely never will be a republic. Their history of class divisions will always "inform" their politics, either in ascendence, decadence or reaction.
The "problem" with parliamentary systems is that they try to approximate majority rule.
No doubt, I've not satisfied you, jax: You want me to explain our way of life — by giving a glib definition of a single term, republic… Our history shows that we've not secured such a simplistic explanation.
But, when contrasted with another often-thought-to-be synonymous term, democracy, we bristle! And you become confused… (Or think us un-sophisticated! If you're aware of that word's dirivation, you know we're not offended. :) ) To us, democracy is synonymous with majority rule. And that principle is odious, since it doesn't comport with liberty — except accidentally: We meant to be deliberate…
Thanks for an answer with a bit of substance, finally (and sorry for late answer, but this seems like a long game anyway).
No, I don't think many believe that republic and democracy is the same thing, though some may attach different meanings to the two words. Like you do. It's not too hard to adjust for that, when you make clear(er) what you mean.
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
Democracy, as lampooned as the dictatorship of the majority, didn't exist when the Athenians coined the words, didn't exist when the US founding fathers wrote their tracts, and doesn't exist for any countries today. The only example I can think of as relevant would be referenda like the one of Scottish independence and Californian ballot propositions. All the criticism of "democracy" apply here, governance by referenda would be an atrocious system.
In your vocabulary republic excludes a parliamentary system, that is fair and fine, we can discuss the merits and demerits of parliamentary and presidential systems. Most liberal democracies tend toward either one of them or some strange mix of the two (sorry for "liberal democracy" containing the D word, I am willing to use "liberal thing-a-ma-bob"; if you object to "liberal" as well, feel free to substitute "lawish" or what-have-you).
All liberal democracies (lawish thing-a-ma-bobs) have separation of powers, each in different ways, most have a constitution (among obscure national claims, Sweden claims to be the country with the oldest constitution, but that constitution is no longer in use). Federalist is an odd requirement. It is obvious for the United States, that lies in the name, but if e.g. Scotland actually had become an independent country a few days ago and decided to become an OakdaleFTLish republic would it need to artificially create states to do so?
is this only in here or Democracy is just LaBel without contents ?
that seems more like Plutocracy , Mobocracy like Oak said .
nor kleptocracy . :ko:
The trouble with you SmileyFaze is you don't see what is what only what is in your cumfy corner. The system has not been working so brilliantly for all those years at all and trying to claim your idea is better than real democracy is something else. The incredible trillions of debt, half the world expenditure on armaments, tens of millions of poor, a million a year losing homes, salaries of the less off hardly moving while the gap at the top and bottom has mushroomed. A political system carved up by two parties that get unlimited money from corporates to do their bidding. Wanting to rule the world or batter those that object into submission, argue over rights, constitution, freedoms, rights incessantly. in your blinkered vision all those who lose a home, get unemployed, get a hard time have rights infringed deserve it. When you consider how big these issues are I don't know how you can rest easy on being such a wonderful place.
There are millions who have had their loyalty misused and treated awfully. Constant interference with the person, using security as an excuse for more controls. Now the security lot over there have taken umbrage at mobile phone makers creating encryption for their phones! You couldn't make this up! What you should do is just declare an dictatorship instead of working towards it gradually. The last place in modern Western lif eto be suddenly poor is the land of the free and home of the brave.
RJH-- real democracy can't exist for long. It can't exist for the very simple reason that unfettered mob rule would quickly bankrupt the system as people voted themselves largess after largess.
It can't exist for much the same reason an anarchic system-- if such a thing could exist outside of Somalia-- could long exist. Anarchy quickly breaks down into rule by warlords, with each tribe trying to kill off the others until one rises supreme and has power to enforce its dictates on everybody else.
What's left then, is some form of monarchy, or some form of dictatorship, or some form of democratically elected republic. Not much else has stood long.
In truth, the constitutional republic the United States is supposed to have was a chancy thing, only a couple of other peoples have had anything like it before-- the Greeks and the Romans-- and the Roman experiment showed the tendency for this to break down into dictatorship. We've been dangerously close to that a few times, and I have to say I'm not terribly comfortable with the way things are shaping up now. Those $%&# executive orders that Obama has been using to side-step Congress can all too easily lead to one man running the show unless the president can be checked by the courts. Executive orders have their place, but using them to make end-runs around the Congress-- just ain't right.
Democracy, as lampooned as the dictatorship of the majority, didn't exist when the Athenians coined the words
Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I think your definition of "dictatorship" is what's lacking in particulars; not my definition of "democracy"…
I understand why you want a "pure" definition (of
republic). The concept is outside of your experience…at least, the way Americans would use it; and translation is sometimes deucedly difficult. But the impediments need not be considered insurmountable: Our differences are all reasonably understandable.
By contrast, were I try to try to explain to Howie why the U.S. isn't and shouldn't want to be a
democracy in
his sense, I'd have undertaken a fool's errand! :)
BTW: I'm not sure I mentioned the explicit embrace of the concept of limited government our Constitution enshrines… (Yeah. I meant the word! And -as we all know- idols are, at best, transitory.) Without this, such a republic as ours cannot survive long…
It seems you mistake my intent: I don't mean to denigrate other forms of government (for other peoples); nor do I mean to recommend ours to them. I'm primarily concerned with the preservation of our own system, as I understand it. (You know, that old "defend against enemies foreign and domestic" oath I took so long ago… :) ) When I descry dangerous "innovations" and decry them, my aim is a conservative one: The continuation of our experiment.
You may not feel the same as I would, about the process of its abandonment…
It can't exist for much the same reason an anarchic system-- if such a thing could exist outside of Somalia-- could long exist. Anarchy quickly breaks down into rule by warlords, with each tribe trying to kill off the others until one rises supreme and has power to enforce its dictates on everybody else.
That's a common argument against Democracy, but the same thing has happened in the past with constitutional republics. Exhibit A: After the French revolution there was briefly a constitutional monarchy followed by constitutional republic. That was followed by a dictatorship (Napoleon.) China became a Republic after the fall of the monarchy. The Republicans fled to Formosa and the communist dictatorship took hold on the mainland. Do I have to mention what happened to the Weimar Republic? Those are just examples off the top of my head. There are certainly numerous other examples throughout history of Republics devolving into tyrannies; Latin America seems like a good place to start (yes, most of the countries are free now but had undergone military coups , etc in the 20th century after adopting a system of government that was basically a copy of the American one.)
So based on history, it seems a mistake to call Constitutional Republics inherently stable. I submit that it's more the economic/ social situation within a country that determines its stability more than type of government. Where the American system is breaking down is that you have Senators and Representatives paying lip service to their constituents' concerns, but are really representing the mega-corporations - especially since the Citizen's United decision. (Incidentally, since the corporations are people, there's been studies indicting that most of them would be sociopaths. So do you put GM, Bank of America, etc in prison or in an asylum. Oh that's right. If I commit a crime, that would the expected outcome; but if a mega-corporation commits crimes they get a taxpayer bailout.)
Those $%&# executive orders that Obama has been using to side-step Congress can all too easily lead to one man running the show unless the president can be checked by the courts. Executive orders have their place, but using them to make end-runs around the Congress-- just ain't right.
Okay, you're showing signs of understanding what I said above. But is the crap about Obama's executive orders GOP propaganda? This is slightly old, but as of January 31, 2014 Obama the "dictator" signed. 168 executive orders compared to Bush's 291. Snopes debunked the Obama executive orders bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp). At the bottom of article, it lists the number of executives orders of all presidents since Theodore Roosevelt. In fact, Obama signed fewer executive orders than any two term president since the time of Teddy (1901.) I hate to say this, but this know nothing, do nothing Tea Party Congress frankly needs to be bypassed. In many other countries, the chief executive would have dissolved this Congress. Since Smiley and Oakdale are easily confused, I'm not saying this should be done. I'm merely pointing out how ludicrous is to even think about calling this president a dictator.
only a couple of other peoples have had anything like it before-- the Greeks and the Romans
The Athenians, did in fact, have direct Democracy for the free male citizens. It was the type of Democracy that the founding father's so feared, not democracy as we understand it today (with a constitution that prohibits the 51% majority from trampling the 49% minority.) On the state levels, in America we often get tastes of direct Democracy, ie with voters casting ballots in favor or opposed to laws and not just state constitutional amendments. Funny thing though. When some of those laws voted on by the people wound up being overturned on constitutional grounds, many "America is a republic not a democracy" people went online and complained that the "will of the people" had been overturned by the courts (never mind that in some cases, the "will of the people" had changed in the interim according to all polling data.) Hypocrisy anyone? I'm NOT saying that on the Federal Level America is or even should be a direct democracy. merely that direct democracy does exist in America.
at least Meritocracy is originally from China .
or is that just ?
"My life is full of lie " :sst:
Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I think your definition of "dictatorship" is what's lacking in particulars; not my definition of "democracy"…
I understand why you want a "pure" definition (of republic). The concept is outside of your experience…at least, the way Americans would use it; and translation is sometimes deucedly difficult. But the impediments need not be considered insurmountable: Our differences are all reasonably understandable.
By contrast, were I try to try to explain to Howie why the U.S. isn't and shouldn't want to be a democracy in his sense, I'd have undertaken a fool's errand! :)
BTW: I'm not sure I mentioned the explicit embrace of the concept of limited government our Constitution enshrines… (Yeah. I meant the word! And -as we all know- idols are, at best, transitory.) Without this, such a republic as ours cannot survive long…
It seems you mistake my intent: I don't mean to denigrate other forms of government (for other peoples); nor do I mean to recommend ours to them. I'm primarily concerned with the preservation of our own system, as I understand it. (You know, that old "defend against enemies foreign and domestic" oath I took so long ago… :) ) When I descry dangerous "innovations" and decry them, my aim is a conservative one: The continuation of our experiment.
You may not feel the same as I would, about the process of its abandonment…
For all of these, including the US founding fathers, it was all theory, not observation. It is like a group of virgins discussing the merits of sex. That was two hundred and two score years ago or so. Much has happened since, from basically no liberal democracy (
lawish thing-a-ma-bob), there are now many. Depending on how inclusive you are on
things-a-ma-bob, a majority in fact. Furthermore the systems have changed often over the decades and centuries. These days we have a plethora of case studies with different systems of government.
What I am looking for is clarity of thinking, a pre-requisite of clarity of presentation. You claim your system has some substance, let's call it woo, that other systems lack, but when pressed for the characteristic of this woo, you evade. It seems you believe this woo is under threat, that there was more woo before, but in that case it would be more important to be clear what woo is, and what in woo is worth preserving unchanged, what could or maybe should be adapted to newer circumstances, and what is fluff.
I am not offended on behalf of any system of government (neither should or would I), but any comparison should be based on observation, not on rhetorical ideas. Other systems may have woo too, of different flavours, which may or may not be desirable, with their own set of proponents and detractors. Some try to compare and rank directly, using some or other form of metric, like Freedom House's
Freedom in the World survey
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/2013_Freedom_House_world_map.svg/640px-2013_Freedom_House_world_map.svg.png)
or EIU's
Democracy index,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg/640px-Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg.png)
and that is fine as far as it goes.
Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. None of the slaves had any say in it.
Socrates might have disagreed… But he was put to death.
I think your definition of "dictatorship" is what's lacking in particulars; not my definition of "democracy"…
I understand why you want a "pure" definition (of republic). The concept is outside of your experience…at least, the way Americans would use it; and translation is sometimes deucedly difficult. But the impediments need not be considered insurmountable: Our differences are all reasonably understandable.
By contrast, were I try to try to explain to Howie why the U.S. isn't and shouldn't want to be a democracy in his sense, I'd have undertaken a fool's errand! :)
BTW: I'm not sure I mentioned the explicit embrace of the concept of limited government our Constitution enshrines… (Yeah. I meant the word! And -as we all know- idols are, at best, transitory.) Without this, such a republic as ours cannot survive long…
It seems you mistake my intent: I don't mean to denigrate other forms of government (for other peoples); nor do I mean to recommend ours to them. I'm primarily concerned with the preservation of our own system, as I understand it. (You know, that old "defend against enemies foreign and domestic" oath I took so long ago… :) ) When I descry dangerous "innovations" and decry them, my aim is a conservative one: The continuation of our experiment.
You may not feel the same as I would, about the process of its abandonment…
For all of these, including the US founding fathers, it was all theory, not observation. It is like a group of virgins discussing the merits of sex. That was two hundred and two score years ago or so. Much has happened since, from basically no liberal democracy (lawish thing-a-ma-bob), there are now many. Depending on how inclusive you are on things-a-ma-bob, a majority in fact. Furthermore the systems have changed often over the decades and centuries. These days we have a plethora of case studies with different systems of government.
What I am looking for is clarity of thinking, a pre-requisite of clarity of presentation. You claim your system has some substance, let's call it woo, that other systems lack, but when pressed for the characteristic of this woo, you evade. It seems you believe this woo is under threat, that there was more woo before, but in that case it would be more important to be clear what woo is, and what in woo is worth preserving unchanged, what could or maybe should be adapted to newer circumstances, and what is fluff.
I am not offended on behalf of any system of government (neither should or would I), but any comparison should be based on observation, not on rhetorical ideas. Other systems may have woo too, of different flavours, which may or may not be desirable, with their own set of proponents and detractors. Some try to compare and rank directly, using some or other form of metric, like Freedom House's Freedom in the World survey
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/2013_Freedom_House_world_map.svg/640px-2013_Freedom_House_world_map.svg.png)
or EIU's Democracy index,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg/640px-Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg.png)
and that is fine as far as it goes.
Great colours. What do they mean?
#1 Freedom in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World)
#2 Democracy Index. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)
I wondered too... looked them up just now.
Thank you.
My bad. I should have included more maps and their legends. This one is a little amusing in this context.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Claims_of_democracy.png)
Legend
Blue : government claims the country to be democratic and allows opposition groups.
Green: government claims to be so democratic no opposition is needed.
Red: We don't need no stinking democracy.
So in summary the greens and the blues are the democratic countries, the red the non-democratic ones, according to this map of claims of claims. In other words democracy has taken over the world, the democratic world anyway.
something awkward about democracy is ... we are allowed to do anything .
included , to remove the traditional Election .
in here , there is new Constitutional amandment .
the Mayor , is Choosed by Regional Congress .
And there is new amandment Proposal , to Remove The President election .
in another word , The president is Choosed by the Congress .
not by the People .
This by comparison are the countries, marked in blue, the aforementioned Freedom House consider to be representative democracies. (As there are no countries with direct democracy, the subset of representative democracies is the same as the set of democratic countries.)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Electoral_democracies.png)
Speaking of the aforemented, the legend of Freedom in the World is:
Free (90) Partly Free (58) Not Free (47)
For what they actually mean by free/partially free/not free, you need to follow the above link.
With the recent changes Wikipedia has turned legend-hostile.
The people are just fodder.
Constant arguments over there on that Constitution as if Moses had created it!With over 50% of the lower house on the 'Hill multi-millionaires and a big proportion of the Upper one run by the money barons they people have no say. When the big two parties have those daft "Conventions" it is a s much a political conference as a circus. it is just a big party for the money propagandists to use. I do not see the point about going on about how wonderful the Constitution is and what the country stands for when there is so much damn misery in the place and tens of millions to who the words mean absolutely nothing in practice. Voting is a waste of time it is only that people have been misused, conned and brained into thinking their views are important. Instead it is the thousands of company reps who influence the Hill.
Kind of sad in a way when you think that it is a family and friendly orientated type of nation but as I say, badly misused and conned.
Getting a map of the
Democracy index with legend is easy if we skirt Wikipedia:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bnn24.com%2Fuploads%2Fnews%2F1324913539ap_4.jpg&hash=ccd395a7dbe61d53bed9161cf3e0d2f3" rel="cached" data-hash="ccd395a7dbe61d53bed9161cf3e0d2f3" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.bnn24.com/uploads/news/1324913539ap_4.jpg)
That said, these were for illustrative purpose. Reducing the political, economic, and social system of a country into a number from 0.00 to 10.00 will lose a little bit of the picture.
Edit: In this one Norway wins the democracy beauty contest; Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
North Korea on the other hand is not in the running to advance to the next planetary round.
According to the latest issue of the index for 2012, Norway scored a total of 9.93 on a scale from zero to ten, keeping the first place position it has held since 2010, when it replaced Sweden as the highest-ranked country in the index. North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, the same as in 2010 and 2011.
In this map red denotes the monarchies, while the blues have to do without.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F78%2FFormas_de_governo.PNG&hash=f88a2244d4f7dffe56705e0e181ff22b" rel="cached" data-hash="f88a2244d4f7dffe56705e0e181ff22b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Formas_de_governo.PNG)
Where the American system is breaking down is that you have Senators and Representatives paying lip service to their constituents' concerns, but are really representing the mega-corporations - especially since the Citizen's United decision
…you do know, that the Citizen's United case was about whether it was allowable to broadcast a bio-pic about Hillary Clinton while she was "running" for president?
Perhaps you should move to Scotland, and advocate "independence"… :)
More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government,
Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.
(You have an argument that says otherwise? That letting government choose who "deserves" subsidies, accommodation or any kind of special treatment?
Of course, our state's governments do this sort of thing; they compete with each other, for limited resources… But they're more like "us" and less like what we imagine or perceive the US to be.
Can't you make that distinction?)
Everything that you advocate leads to an elite who -sure, it's the majority!- must prevail! (Except when the majority goes against your views. I'll be one of the few standing with you, then.) If you don't understand what principles upon which our country was founded, perhaps you should go back to school?
Or emigrate. (Where would you go? :) )
More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government, Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.
Where have you been? Mars? Maybe you feel into a blackhole and emerged out the other end in an alternate universe? Really, you have never heard of Federal laws being passed in corporations' favor? Reality called and said to tell you the Federal government, can come close to doing whatever the hell it wants and find some why to make it constitutional. I would have thought you guys would have figured that out with Obamacare. I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/alec-corporations-are-big-spenders/)) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good. I wish I could dismiss you as an idiot, I really do. But you're not. You've been so self-indoctrinated on conservative and right wing blogs and even some actual essays about how "limited" the Federal government supposedly is and whatnot (never heard of the commerce clause and necessary and proper laws one?) that it's blinded you to what actually happens, which is a type of Mussolinian fascism lite - the collusion of state and corporate power. Yes, Virginia, Santa Federal delivers gifts to corporations, too.
You are correct that the state's compete for a corporation's favor (such as Nevada winning the Telsa "Giga factory" ) but that's not the end of the story.
....I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/alec-corporations-are-big-spenders/)) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good........
Then one might ask why do some, if not many, of these same corporations & special interests spend heaps of cash on opposing candidates in the same election?
If candidate
A & candidate
B must both disclose who their political contributors are/were, after the election of say candidate
B, wouldn't he know that
XYZ corporation contributed to his opponent. What would
XYZ's benefits be there?
Explain that for us won't you?
....I mean, holy shit, you seriously don't know why corporations and corporate special interests (such as ALEC donations to Federal candidates can be found here (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/alec-corporations-are-big-spenders/)) spend millions to get the Senators and Representatives they want elected? Do tell us why organizations such as this spend money on Federal candidates if it does them no good........
Then one might ask why do some, if not many, of these same corporations & special interests spend heaps of cash on opposing candidates in the same election?
If candidate A & candidate B must both disclose who their political contributors are/were, after the election of say candidate B, wouldn't he know that XYZ corporation contributed to his opponent. What would XYZ's benefits be there?
Explain that for us won't you?
Smiley, I have a suspicion even an uneducated doofus like me can probably answer that one. The reason a corporation would support (behind the scenes of course) both candidates for a given race is to make sure that whoever wins, the newly elected representative is bought and paid for. Covering all the possibilities, you might say.
Here in Illinois, they say you can tell when a politician is honest. Once you buy him, he stays bought. Try not to think about that too much, it'll make your brain explode.
Smiley, I have a suspicion even an uneducated doofus like me can probably answer that one. The reason a corporation would support (behind the scenes of course) both candidates for a given race is to make sure that whoever wins, the newly elected representative is bought and paid for. Covering all the possibilities, you might say.
You're right. But a bit more specifically, unless one drinks of the "what principles upon which our country was founded" flavored Kool-Aide too deeply. one understands that senators and representatives impact industry specific regulations, etc (and not just broad issues of minimum wage, taxation and whatnot.) While I can appreciate those principles, they weren't what happens in Washington for a long time, no matter how much lip service a candidate pays to them. Power and influence beyond what a given country's laws theoretically allow is just part human nature.
But what does the United States Constitution allow? Via the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Laws Clause damn near whatever the Federal government wants (short of Bill of Rights protections such free speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.) Short of "founding fathers" and "what principles upon which our country was founded" many of the men who founded the country and shaped its early history were actually in favor of a strong central government.
Here in Illinois, they say you can tell when a politician is honest. Once you buy him, he stays bought.
Hrm, sounds like a fine Las Vegas tradition. Maybe we learned from your folks? Oh, Bugsy Seigel. Now it makes sense. Maybe Vegas is the illegitimate child Chicago and LA? For course, if either of the cities were people, you'd want a a full-body condom and still visit the doctor in the morning. The doctor's response will be "You'd slept with who? Are you crazy or were just drunk of your gourd ? I'm going to order a full battery of medical tests..."
Where have you been? Mars?
Do
they not understand tensed expressions and conditionals there, like
you do here? :)
I said, "if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government"… Too complicated for you, I guess; both the expression and the concept. Oh, well.
You said:
More seriously, if you'd accept and promulgate a sensibly limited government, Sang, the "mega-corporations" (and even their minions, and other minor "players") would have no reason to suck up to the government — given that it could give them nothing…or next to nothing.
You know damn the implications of your words. Trying to cloak it as a conditional doesn't fool anyone. Maybe you don't, since you vehemently disagreed with me about how subtle phrasing and word choice affect the entire meaning of sentences and passages.
But I see you have no real answer. That's because in your heart of hearts, you know I'm right despite the rightwing nonsense you've been reading. I can feel your cognitive dissonance from here and it's tearing you apart. The politicians are bought and sold like used cars, and like used cars there's always something wrong with them that the salesmen "forget" to point out. However, this has nothing to with Right nor Left and everything to do with reality.
Oakdale, I gotta wonder what you've been smoking. Limited or not, senators and representatives would have power to pass laws that influence how business operates. As long as greedy people can be bought, and those greedy people get elected to public office, we're going to have corrupt government-- regardless of its size.
Ah! I see you, Sang and mjm, have converted to full-time cynicism… In that case, your only reasonable recourse to reforming our system is to hope (or work?) for a benevolent dictatorship. :) It takes a lot of work, to maintain both a constant outrage and ennui or actual despair!
Not everyone can do it…
That's kinda what the Constitution was about in the first place: The creation of a federal government strong enough to function in some crucial areas but limited otherwise, by explicit grants and prohibitions and the separation of powers into "jealous" branches.
Slowly (but surely…) you two are coming around to the Framers' conception of human nature. (mjm, you probably know it better as "Man's sinful nature" :) and expect the millennium. Sang used to believe in progressivism in the same spirit!) That's a good sign, I'd say.
It is to be expected that re-building an optimism for you sufficient to engage you in our experiment (again? :) ) will take time…
Not to worry: Others will do the heavy lifting!
But you can start with reacquainting yourselves with the old saw You can't cheat an honest man. Happy ruminations! :)
Hey, I'm from Illinois. Honest politician? What's that?
A mere man, mjm… Hence it behooves us to cleve to our principles of government, though they impede "progress" and require a humility long out of fashion.
A virtuous polity is not an impossibility. Or is it? :)
You know, I've seen you lambaste Sang because of his belief in utopias run by ever expanding and ever more benevolent governments. Now I see you, Oak, believe in a utopia brought about by smaller government that, somehow, isn't corrupt.
I have two words to say to that. Stone Park. Stone Park is a village about ten miles from where I live, reputedly bought and paid for by the mob, which gets to do whatever it pleases in the sin-strip along Mannheim Road. It's cleaned up some from what it was, but the stretch from Lake Street to Grand Avenue has long been notorious for being a place with bars, sleazy hotels, girls of questionable repute and you can probably get illegal drugs if you know who to ask.
Small government? It doesn't get much smaller than village government, especially in a non-home rule town.
Now I see you, Oak, believe in a utopia brought about by smaller government that, somehow, isn't corrupt.
(I'm replying in haste — because, in conversation, that's how it's done!) You mistake rational accommodation -with a view to "civil" society- with Utopia? How droll.
Cynicism is very tempting!
Indeed, Man is corrupt; or, at least, corruptible. Shouldn't we then
tempt him to virtue? Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain? Oughtn't we re-asses our travails from time to time to see where we may have over-reacted, and created unnecessary controversies?
Even the worst of us has our better moments… (Hitler was a vegan; Stalin loved puppies! Sautéd — but love is love, for such as
Sang; who are we, to judge? :) ) When Washington set the example of a modest chief executive, by declining a third term as president, he himself meant more than that he was old and tired and had done enough… He'd previously declined kingship, as unbecoming.
I'd ask you: That estimation (for it is only an estimate!) of "unbecoming" refers to what? I'd say, both his own and his contemporaries' view of the state of mankind.
I doubt we've transcended or much surpassed that state. Would you have us renounce society? Or pursue it, in full knowledge of our faults?
That is the choice, as I see it.
Or -as you and
Sang now seem to argue- sit on the sidelines and carp? (And snipe at those who still care…) Simple questions,
mjm.
What simple answers do either of you give?
Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain?
We're seeing the result of that right in the Middle East. Isis used to be an Egyptian goddess with a phonetically pleasing name :( Let's break that monopoly and have multiple armies within the US using force for private gain. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. We can be just like Somalia :yes:
Maybe that's why the authors of the constitution in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. Relevant parts from that article:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You, use of the force is the job of Congress according to the constitution. Despite and obvious second amendment argument, multiple private factions doing those jobs doesn't seem to be permitted by the constitution, in addition to it just plan being a bad idea (yay, private for profit armies operating in the US without the oversight of the congress nor the president who are sure to step on each others toes. Instant civil war: just put it in the microwave of overheated passions and pride for a minute and a half and it explode.)
Sang, how many words you omitted (left out…), put in (because you thought they sounded "cool"), mis-spelled (because you don't know any better…) and simply regurgitated — I can't say; I can, however, say that I have no idea what you meant to convey by your (above) post.
Oh! Wait… Now I see: You think of monopoly as something natural! And you think I'd want a "free market" in the "goods and services" provided by the use of force… You can't be that stupid! (Can you?)
Remove from the purview of government as much as you can, Grasshopper! That's how you regain a civil society…
Put more forcefully (and you seem to require such…): Prohibit the government from interfering in the private sphere, except in exigent circumstances.
We can do this. Indeed, we mostly did a quarter of a millennium ago!
You'll always look for the "odd" phrasing, to make your snarky points. But will you ever take ideas and politics seriously enough to understand your antagonist's points? (Or even your own? :) ) I have -on the basis of more than a few years of reading your posts- serious doubts…
You're a single-issue voter, par excellence! Your attempts to embrace or address other issues are pitifully lacking in sincerity or understanding. Won't you say what really matters to you, so others can respond appropriately?
But since you so obviously are an ESL drop-out, let me be clear: Preclude the government from employing it's monopoly of force for the benefit of private actors… (I know, that's too complicated for your political "philosophy" to grasp or encompass; just take my word for it.)
You'll always look for the "odd" phrasing, to make your snarky points.
Let's address this, shall we? You are perhaps this single snarkiest one here. You provide snark and sarcasm in lieu of real answers on a regular basis. In psychological terms terms, it's call projecting.
Shouldn't we obviate the most obvious vice, government's monopoly on the use of force for private gain?
It's hardly my fault, you didn't make your meaning clear. A non-monopoly implies allowing other actors to use force and violent. We seem the results in the most war-torn and impoverished regions of the world. The Right-wing blogs and articles tend say things iike "remove the government's monopoly on the use of force." What does that mean? The most obvious answer is quite dangerous and no country has ever survived this with a government able to keep order through the nation.
And you think I'd want a "free market" in the "goods and services" provided by the use of force… You can't be that stupid! (Can you?)
In fact, I don't begin to think that. Where are you getting this stuff from? The problem is that I've known the answer for a long time. It's your strange predilection for assigning positions to me that, at times, I've made direct statements against. Note that you're being snarky and indirectly calling me stupid by assigning and insane position to me. But what is force? There's military force. But the government hasn't had a monopoly on other, more subtle types of if in at least a century. Much, if not most, of the government's regulatory, is by proxy. The special interests, including the Kochs (whose candidates no doubt voted for) apply force the government via lobbying, campaign contributions, and perhaps more malevolent means to get what they want and it's all within the framework of the constitution. Far from having a monopoly on force, the government has become a tool for those with the real power. Think of it as the Wizard of Oz. You see an impressive figure in smoke, seemingly all powerful. Look behind the screen to find Kochs and their brothers holding the real force, while denouncing their own avatars in Washington as further concealment. The "liberals" have attempted to weaken the force of the puppetmasters, and therefore that of their puppets in government, but that was recently defeated by the Supreme Court to the cheers of conservatives.
You're a single-issue voter, par excellence! Your attempts to embrace or address other issues are pitifully lacking in sincerity or understanding.
:lol:
It's hardly my fault, you didn't make your meaning clear. A non-monopoly implies allowing other actors to use force and violent.
Might a more reasonable interpretation of my phrase using the word
obviate be: make the use of force (which is government's monopoly, and generally unarguable)
unnecessary and
averted…?
I'm sorry I sometimes use words that you don't understand. Just as I'm sure you regret that your typing can't keep up with the speed of your thoughts, hence your meaning often has to guessed at by your readers.
How long ago was it that you were arguing that conservatives and small-government types
should be in favor of the PP&ACA, because they'd likely get a single-payer system if they didn't "compromise"?
Crony capitalism's ills aren't solved by granting more and more regulatory power to higher and higher levels of government…
The "liberals" have attempted to weaken the force of the puppetmasters, and therefore that of their puppets in government, but that was recently defeated by the Supreme Court to the cheers of conservatives.
I assume you mean the
Citizens United decision? (Of course, I've long maintained that
McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional, on 1st Amendment grounds… W. should have vetoed it.) That was the last straw, for "Liberals", wasn't it? :)
I'd disagree, that the "force of the puppet-masters" was ever meant to be weakened by "Liberals." They just want to be the only ones allowed to pull the strings…
By the bye: How'd that vote turn out? :)
I'd disagree, that the "force of the puppet-masters" was ever meant to be weakened by "Liberals." They just want to be the only ones allowed to pull the strings…
Surely you don't really believe that last part. Why is that both Democrats and Republicans seek a majority in the chambers? But yes, weakening corporate influence in Washington has been a long term goal of liberals on the street, not be be confused with the corrupted Democratic Senator or Representive
Might a more reasonable interpretation of my phrase using the word obviate be: make the use of force (which is government's monopoly, and generally unarguable) unnecessary and averted…?
I'm sorry I sometimes use words that you don't understand
You think I don't understand what obviate means? Of course the government shouldn't have the right to use force for private gain. It has been long noted that the Iraq debacle was (at least arguably) the result of that with Cheney still getting money from Halliburton, who mysteriously won no-bid contracts over there. The whole war smacked of corruption at the highest level - before a Republican reflectively says "Bush Blame!" I'm positive that wasn't the first time something like that happened and won't be the last.
Where you alarmed was me with the word "monopoly." The backstory is I've seen conservative to outright rightwing articles and blogs calling for an end of the the government monopoly on presumably military force. That's a Somalia scenario. But you mean to say to make it unnecessary for private gain. It's not necessary now, but is the result of corruption and conflict of interest. We can go through a few more drafts of the phrasing but perhaps a better and clearer way to say it would "Shouldn't we preclude the government's most obvious vices of conflict of interest and endemic corruption, which extends to the use of force for private gain?" This way, it's slightly more original and not cribbing from blogs and talking points that become more nonsensible the more you analyze the phrasing. More importantly, it doesn't begin to imply extending the right to use force to any Somalia type, sociopathological would-be warlord that claims he can keep order with no congressional oversight. When it comes to English, or any other language, there at least as many ways to parse the meaning of a sentence as there are speakers of the language. Case in point: what do I mean by "speakers?" Native speakers, those that picked it up as a second language (L1 v L2) - note the wide disagreement between Infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0775272.html) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers) and Infoplease claims its numbers are the total number of speakers and not just native ones.
This is what I've been trying to get through to you. The author's intent is not always the only reasonable way to parse words. If the reader misunderstands the author's meaning, it's not always a deficiency in his reading ability - it's lack of clarity on the the author's part. So, for another case in point, the preceding sentence probably should be two sentences. Technically, you could argue there's a pronoun issue was well.
I don't see the present adminstration much different from the one before. Obama has been well into warfare attitudes. However most Americans are decent and I hope one day democracy is the norm and not the dated system run by the money clan. The people deserve better.
Where you alarmed was me with the word "monopoly." The backstory is I've seen conservative to outright rightwing articles and blogs calling for an end of the the government monopoly on presumably military force.
Hm. I suspect
you read more right-wing blogs than I do! :) (I regularly read
- National Review Online
- Chaos Manor
- The Volokh Conspacy
- Taki's Magazine
- Wm. Briggs, Statistician to the stars!
That's pretty much it; no "aggregators" deserve my regular attention. Some individual writers are -since they continue- of interest to me: Theodore Dalrymple and John Derbyshire, both of whom you likely hate or know nothing about; or both… :)
I also like and regularly visit Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. and that Canadian statistician's blog ClimateAudit… (I'd try to keep up with current science, and the "memes" others would substitute for it. I
do have the background to understand, what's what and what's at stake.
But no credentials… Do your darnedest!
I give you smiley-faces, because you shown yourself unable to deal with words. (Do you
talk that way? I mean, the way your write? You graduated
cum laude from an accredited university; even though it was with a Sociology major, you should still be capable of producing prose in English… Of course, if you've gone
post-doc, all bets are off!
I miss the
whisper function of the old MyOpera forums… Because I'd ask: Why don't you bother to "proof" your posts?
Next, I'll ask why you don't bother to "proof" your politics and preconceptions; etc. … )
[I was tempted, to leave off the final parens…
Sang, I have no idea what you believe in, because you change with the wind!* Tell me, what have you
learned in the last -say- six years?]
————————————————————————
* You have no idea what you believe in: Other than what you
want, you've never given anyone a clue… Your concerns are all about what you
want; why should anyone else be so concerned, since you so routinely denigrate and abuse others who don't agree with you?
You're a Democrat voter! :)
But —tell us!— would you vote for Joe Biden, against any Republican candidate in 2016?
You might also tell us, why…
:)
Not much of a choice between Biden and a Republican candidate the shambles that lot are. Obama was supposed to be different from GW but wasn't. The number of drones, killings, security rubbish, etc shows that.
Not much of a choice between Biden and a Republican candidate the shambles that lot are. Obama was supposed to be different from GW but wasn't. The number of drones, killings, security rubbish, etc shows that.
Might as well give it up, RJ. This thread has become a slug-fest between Oakdale and Sang, the rest of us barely exist here. Fact is, I have a suspicion the whole reason for this thread is to give Oak and Sang their own sandbox, so--- leave them at it, I reckon.
Might as well give it up, RJ. This thread has become a slug-fest between Oakdale and Sang, the rest of us barely exist here.
Nonsense!
RJ talks about the same thing, in every thread…
Sang and I have our long-standing differences, which help to pass the time… But the topic here was meant to be the U.S. Left's latest attempt to do away with that pesky "free speech" amendment, which -apparently- interests practically nobody here.
Sobeit.
————————————————————————————————
When it comes to English, or any other language, there at least as many ways to parse the meaning of a sentence as there are speakers of the language.
Hm. If that were true, language would cease to function. No? :) (Consider that a simple
reductio…)
.......So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed!.......
It's a sly way for the Party in power to make rules, in this case on campaign spending -- which I along with many consider a
'free speech' issue, which naturally change every time their Arch-Enemies wrest power from the groping hands of the incumbent party.
This is a blatant assault on the
'Right to Free Speech', & all efforts that can be mobilized must be summoned to defeat any effort to effectively modify the First Amendment -- weakening our most basic of Rights....the Rights of Free Speech.
Any restriction to campaign finance must be voluntary --- if at all. It can not be legislated, except through the offering of a Constitutional Amendment, & any such amendment proposed must be nipped in the bud.
This amendment abridges fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of Americans. The arguments made to support it are unconvincing. The amendment will weaken, not strengthen democracy. It will not reduce corruption, but open the door for elected officials to bend democracy's rules to benefit themselves. The fact that the Committee took up this amendment at all, and regrettably adopted it, is a great testament to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in insisting on and adopting a Bill of Rights in the first place.
We recoil from the majority’s citation of poll results on the popularity of First Amendment protected speech as a basis to scale back the protections of the Bill of Rights. As Justice Jackson famously wrote, ‘‘The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’’..........
..........We must preserve our Bill of Rights including our rights to free speech. We must not allow officials to curtail and ration that right. We must not let this proposal become the supreme law of the land...........
Approximately
11,539 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through January 2, 2013, but failed in Congress.
Let
S.J. Res. 19 be added to that list.
Defeat of this proposed amendment is the only acceptable outcome, & any remnants of it's concept must be forcefully cut out like the cancer that it is.
Defeat of this proposed amendment is the only acceptable outcome, & any remnants of it's concept must be forcefully cut out like the cancer that it is.
This amendment wasn't meant (this time; although its previous incarnation might have been…) to pass. It wasn't even meant to "escape" Committee! But some few Republicans decided, What the hell: Let's show the public what the Democrats are up to!
The fact that you and I both know what should "influence" elections is —(wait for it –––––)— arguments, there is a large portion of the electorate (led by a small portion of our elites) that continually seek to "win" by outlawing their opposition; that is, by regulating "argument" away.
I thought we'd settled this a long time ago; in fact, 1789… But as the 20th century dawned and blossomed and rotted… We saw the Common Man become a fictitious character, an idol. Which became the justification of any evil or excess.
A parenthetical thought: (Who ever thought that was a good idea? Marx, maybe; can't think of anyone else… Rousseau, perhaps. But he was an idiot!)
thought we'd settled this a long time ago; in fact, 1789… But as the 20th century dawned and blossomed and rotted… We saw the Common Man become a fictitious character, an idol. Which became the justification of any evil or excess.
I wasn't aware that AT&T, ExxonMobile, and company were the common man. In my defense, I suspect it's an easy mistake to make. You have grandiose ideas about this, but the amendment wasn't against the common man. It's about corporations such as those drowning out the voice of the common man in a flood of money. What you don't seem to understand is the GOP has no use for the common man, except when they want pay lip service to the religious conservatives concerns. Their main concern is for their corporate masters.
Sang, you've Howie'd yourself! :)
I'm not actually surprised… But I'd hoped, for a long time, that you would be. Now, since you demonized your opponents, all you have to do is repeat the mantra "Them, BAD. Us, GOOD!" Heckava way of forging a lasting government…
Really, you can't really think that was an attempt to block speech by "the common man." It was about campaign finance. Speaking of 1789, the drafters of the constitution would turn over in the their graves if they saw that millions of dollars designed to corrupt the nations leaders are somehow free speech. Remember "original intent" which was to allow individuals to freely criticize the government and not for the Kochs and the ilk to buy and sell folks that were supposed to represent the people?
Defeat of this proposed amendment is the only acceptable outcome, & any remnants of it's concept must be forcefully cut out like the cancer that it is.
You misdiagnosed the cancer. The malevolent tumor is the corrupting influence of campaign finance
Really, you can't really think that was an attempt to block speech by "the common man." It was about campaign finance.
Who, I'd ask, provides (and enforces) the definition of "common man"? Who better, than our esteemed elected public servants, eh? :)
The actual limits on contributions to individual campaigns were left intact by
Citizens United... (You know that, of course?) What was struck down was
McCain-Feingold's limitations on speech, specifically media commercials advertising a bio-pic of a presidential candidate -- one Hillary Clinton.
The reasoning was straightforward: Political speech is protected. The Free Speech clause can't be rescinded by mere legislation or regulation.
What's not so clear (to me, at least) is why you think it can and, worse, that it should be...
You'll forgive me, but I'm not going to be up to arguing with for a few days. You see, I was in an accident and my car is totaled so I can't do with you right now.
Forget the car.How are YOU?
Forget the car.How are YOU?
This.
↑↑
Hope you're okay, Sang. Rest up; I've got lots of time — I'm officially retired, now! :) Sorry about the car, too. But as long as you're okay it's just one of life's inconveniences… Keep smiling; it does help, I've found.
Retired? Congratulations. You have a fondness for words, so maybe you can write a book or two? But join a writer's group, preferably one that lets you read your work and get feedback. You have thick enough skin to withstand criticism. I've written and published two myself and have three more in the oven. My boyfriend's looking over one the published ones for me so I send up a new edition of it.
Anyway, I went online and got approved for a loan and have a couple cars in mind. So, I guess it will be okay once I'm in a new car and this behind me. I might need to sue the manufacturer of the old one though. My friend, who was in the car with me, noted the airbags deployed late. If somebody ran into me at 70 or 75 on the freeway I could have gotten killed.
the airbags deployed late
Good luck with your next car! (Get a model that has pontoons, in case you drive into a lake... :) ) As you must have surmised, I remember when those new-fangled "restraints" (seat belts) were introduced! Damned nuisance, and likely the biggest cause of back-up collisions. (I even know someone who claims to have known someone who hit a fencepost head on and was skewered by it after it came through the windshield: Safety is not to be found in passive systems! Be aware.)
Have fun shopping. I'm sure we'll find our way back to our usual conversational rut in a few days. :)
Sounds like all's well. Good! :)
I might need to sue the manufacturer of the old one though.
Pure America...
My suggestion, sue God too, He could had made some miracle... and, specially, sue Oakdale, his posts were distracting you... :)
Okay, back from the car dealer with a new car with no money down and only slightly higher payments
Pure America...
No, really. If indeed they have a problem with airbags deploy too late to do their job, they need to be held accountable and fix the problem before somebody dies.
Safety is not to be found in passive systems! Be aware.)
Danger might be found in those. For a while I was concerned that the airbag might have broken my friend's ribs, but he's okay.
(Get a model that has pontoons, in case you drive into a lake... :) )
I was gonna take a trip down to Lake Mead.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead)
I was gonna take a trip down to Lake Mead.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead)
Invest in a parachute or two, and SCUBA gear, too! You
can be too careful; but you can't be heedless of the obvious dangers -- without accepting the responsibility.
(Will we get details of the vehicular altercation?)
Pontoons on a car? In heaven's name, why? If you've got more money than sense, go all out and get an amphibious car. They cost like crazy, but there won't be many places you can't go in the thing. I just looked it up, and they have several choices now, including one that looks like a converted Humvee, almost-regular cars, and so help me, a bus-sized RV set up. Below, one of the more "normal" but furiously expensive James Bond wannabe cars.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F10%2F14%2Fautomobiles%2F14AQUA%2F14AQUA-articleLarge.jpg&hash=55368fd9cb39d63d527e66ade8c080d6" rel="cached" data-hash="55368fd9cb39d63d527e66ade8c080d6" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/14/automobiles/14AQUA/14AQUA-articleLarge.jpg)
If you've got more money than sense, go all out and get an amphibious car.
In the '60s, amphibious cars were sold… Not many, of course! But (…although, later, I'll argue otherwise…! :) )
Sang has more sense than money. Hence, "safety features" are required; not ego boosters…
(I seem to recall that the Dymaxion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller#Transportation), R. Buckminster Fuller's concept car was all-but amphibious!)
Because it's to the point I've been trying to make for years, to you Sang: Note what I think is George Will's best column in a decade (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390079/rent-seeking-americas-national-pastime-george-will)!
(He's the fellow who introduced the term "gravitas" into our political lexicon — in a book about baseball… :) )
Would anyone like me to spell out the corollary points, regarding free speech and campaign finance?
I just looked it up, and they have several choices now, including one that looks like a converted Humvee, almost-regular cars, and so help me, a bus-sized RV set up.
Lisbon with a splash (http://www.hippotrip.com/en/).
I just looked it up, and they have several choices now, including one that looks like a converted Humvee, almost-regular cars, and so help me, a bus-sized RV set up.
Lisbon with a splash (http://www.hippotrip.com/en/).
Are you sure that isn't lesbos with a splash.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent7.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F51%2F46%2F80%2F5146805_std.jpg&hash=f91a11c1e701a261b654611efef4ebf8" rel="cached" data-hash="f91a11c1e701a261b654611efef4ebf8" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://content7.flixster.com/question/51/46/80/5146805_std.jpg)
Note what I think is George Will's best column in a decade (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390079/rent-seeking-americas-national-pastime-george-will)!
(He's the fellow who introduced the term "gravitas" into our political lexicon — in a book about baseball… :) )
I think nobody can depute the incidents he brings up in the article. The only possibility is that maybe those whiting strips actually damage teeth and are a dangerous substitute for the real dental procedure. But I'm not making that argument and I don't feel like spending an hour and a half reading article and counter article on that subject to find out.
What I am arguing is that Exxonmobile and friends are not the common man. Frankly, since you made grandiose claims about the common man, the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are instead of me having to define what the common man is. Citizens United undermines the integrity of the republic and will cause more the corruption George Will writes about and not less. In it's black heart, that case had nothing furthering personal economic (in the small business sense) freedom, the First Amendment, etc. It was about the corporations and their proxies being able maintain their stranglehold on American life. Strip away the whitewash and find the same old rotten timbers.
How did a corporation ever become a "person"? In the natural, I know what a person is, what an individual is. It's easy enough, go look in the mirror and you'll see one--- unless you're Count Dracula, I understand looking in mirrors is a problem for him.
Corporations have people in them-- numbering from very small numbers to several thousand-- but should not be, in and of themselves, "people". How can Exxon dare say the corporation speaks as one for all the thousands who work there, in political matters? Not just the big corporate either--- I seem to recall unions do the same-- politicians seek the vote of AFL/CIO and the Teamsters as if these organizations can serve up their membership as a unified voting bloc, when in fact nothing of the sort is possible. My landlord gets AARP magazine, they've been after me but I never joined--- I know they want to say they are the voice of seniors. Sorry, got my own voice, don't need theirs.
Corporations are a "person" only because our strange laws have made it so. Otherwise-- nope, they may be made up of thousands of actual persons but they're not naturally a person themselves.
What I am arguing is that Exxonmobile and friends are not the common man.
I see: Only the people wearing face-paint banging drums and blocking traffic are…common! :)
If you don't belong to a political party, a church, a charitable organization, a club, a union, etc.; well, you're not a
joiner — as they used to say. (There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not much of a joiner, myself. :) ) But do you really want the Red Cross, all the various foundations, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, the Log Cabin Republicans and IGLYO, [extend the list however you'd like…] to go away?
(Even -
gasp!- Planned Parenthood?!)
No,
Sang,
you don't. You just want the Koch brothers (but not Soros and Steyer…) and ExxonMobile (but not Solyndra?), Ford and Chevy (but not GM and Chrysler…?) to go away, or be quiet! You yourself should get to decide who says what, and where… Failing that, you'd have politicians do so. (You're sure you can get enough "voters" to the polls…)
I'm sorry to say, you just want people who disagree with you to shut up! I sympathize… What I have a problem with is your penchant for wanting to use the government to enforce your
Shhh!Big Business is likely your bugaboo. Big Government is mine.
The IRS and EPA have real power… ExxonMobile and the Kochs, not so much. The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation -per you- must be stopped! From saying stuff…
Because people who don't agree with you are stupid! And stupid people can be swayed by words — to positions you disagree with. Why, voters might even decide -for themselves, after hearing arguments- who to vote for! And elect politicians you didn't vote for, who might disagree with you…
I assume you've voted (if you voted…) for Harry Reid throughout your adult life… Own it!
And recognize, your case can only win if made in a Star Chamber! (Luckily, our Constitution specifically banned bills of attainder… :) )
(
mjm, I assume you're awaiting the Rapture — so you don't really care to get involved… :) )
Big Business is likely your bugaboo. Big Government is mine
Big government itself is often a function of big business. Note I said often, but not always. I've failed to be able to show you is the big business and their proxies (ie even the Tea Party) like to talk small government, but once their puppets are elected more laws are enacted in their favor and government grows.
What I have a problem with is your penchant for wanting to use the government to enforce your Shhh!
Nope. Your penchant is still assigning a bunch of political positions to me that I never, ever supported. But let's explore this. The GOP wanted constitutional amendments at both the Federal and state levels against equal marriage. I fought against it and my side is winning on constitutional grounds. Which side was really using the government to enforce their shit and which side was working to reduce the government's power? The "liberal" side's effect was to have laws stricken from the books, laws the conservatives worked hard to put there. Why do I keep bringing that issue up? For me, it's personal. But more than that, I don't give a crap about "liberal" politics. Why the quotes? Because that position isn't necessarily liberal; libertarians and centrists have adopted that position as well. I mean real libertarians, not just GOP/TPers that call themselves that because it's fashionable but have actually taken up very few Libertarian positions.
So, no, I don't need big government any more than you do. Nor do I call for anyone to be silenced. My ant-Marriage foes have been defeated in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. I don't even call for the Kochs to be silenced, just that their money doesn't drown out all other voices. Conservatives seem to think in black and white. If you want limits on campaign financing, it must mean your end game is to silence the opposition. No. The end game is for all voices to be heard. Why do you think the LGBT had to sue about marriage in the first place? Could be possibly be because when they tried to use the normal political processes that the Right metaphorically shoved dollars bills in in the mouths, preventing them from having their say?
Big government itself is often a function of big business. Note I said often, but not always. I've failed to be able to show you is the big business and their proxies (ie even the Tea Party) like to talk small government, but once their puppets are elected more laws are enacted in their favor and government grows.
Some tell whopping lies.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-q1eZbLmZ2nk%2FT7q6FI1d41I%2FAAAAAAAAAAg%2FJhKC1CERfhM%2Fs1600%2Fcheney%2Bwith%2Bpinocchio%2Bnose.jpg&hash=32eece5d65f5626ce6ac7cb9ac5b995c" rel="cached" data-hash="32eece5d65f5626ce6ac7cb9ac5b995c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q1eZbLmZ2nk/T7q6FI1d41I/AAAAAAAAAAg/JhKC1CERfhM/s1600/cheney+with+pinocchio+nose.jpg)
(mjm, I assume you're awaiting the Rapture — so you don't really care to get involved… :) )
You may or may not have noticed, but Jesus seems to be tarrying, as they say. Nothing stops the Rapture from happening today, but nothing guarantees that God won't wait a few thousand more years either. In the meantime, until the Rapture happens we do the job He gave us to do.
Now--- how, exactly, does that have anything to do with whether corporations are persons, whether they can be seen in mirrors (hey, it's October, gotta consider the possibilities) and whether a corporation should have the same right, as a
person that all the thousands of actual people who work for the corporation enjoy-- people who, I might point out, might not share the corporate view of how the country should be run? Should the corporation have the same right-- or even superior rights, given the ability of Exxon to spend money-- as Joe in the mail-room?
Remarkable that jimbro got a real pitcure of that man.
Well,
mjm, I'll expect you at the next round of
Occupy protests… And if you snitch on your pastor -for saying things that
might "influence" an election- the IRS might revoke your church's non-profit status, and levy heavy fines. (You tithe, right? :) )
Joe in the mail-room has more rights than Exxon, and you know it. Exxon has more money… Jealousy is a prevalent and powerful motive, for — well, nothing good that I can think of… Perhaps you can help me out:
What good comes from jealousy?
In the meantime, until the Rapture happens we do the job He gave us to do.
Sow discord? Succor those who would? Promote envy and promulgate false witness?
Of course,
I know, you're just "going with the flow"… Barabbas did so, he thought…
If you can't connect your views to your heart-felt beliefs — which should you re-consider?
Sorry to be so blunt; but we lack a "whisper" function here…
Give me a few minutes. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law. Strange business, that.
I've heard about individuals incorporating themselves for tax/business purposes, but as an I.C. I never could figure how that would be advantageous either. But, I can understand how a one-man corporation could be a person.
Although I think you must be being facetious, I'll answer your points:
First, a corporation has obligations and responsibilities; as well as interests. (You think the latter should be curtailed?)
Second, I tried to search for the meaning of "I.C." and after two pages of Google results I gave up. Then I returned to post… And I realized you meant an independent contractor. Where -Mr. I.C.- would you be, without corporations…? :)
Groups of people assembling for determined purposes is an odd concept, for you? :) The idea of ExxonMobile is a horrible for the likes of Sang; but you should know better!
You don't like their "message" then don't buy their products! Don't watch/listen to/read media they advertise in. Don't invest in their stock, or in that of any of their "collaborators"…
But -before we go off the deep end: What, precisely, has ExxonMobile ever said that you disagreed with?
(I'll understand, if you don't answer…)
I'd be happy to clear it up for you, but I don't know how to pronounce Exxon.
I've had a disturbing thought.
How is Exxon pronounced in Mexico?
You don't like their "message" then don't buy their products! Don't watch/listen to/read media they advertise in. Don't invest in their stock, or in that of any of their "collaborators"…
Until the battery life of electrics is long enough for extended trips, and the price is is brought down to the level of conventional cars, there's not thatch much of a choice. Oh, use the bus. Unfortunately, I tried that and it took about an hour and half for a twenty minute trip by car. I'm sure the tourist routes along the strip and to the Fremont Experience downtown are reasonably efficient, but locals trying to get around will live half their lives on the bus. It isn't even that Exxonmobile and friends are
horrible . It's that their billions dominate the political dialog. It's becomes impossible for the voice of the real common man to be heard through all the oil.
But -before we go off the deep end: What, precisely, has ExxonMobile ever said that you disagreed with?
(I'll understand, if you don't answer…)
They're just an example. It actually doesn't matter what they said. It's the principle of endemic corruption brought about by outsized campaign contributions that you don't seem to understand.
Let me quote Will.
Such laws are growth-inhibiting and job-limiting, injuring the economy while corrupting politics. They are residues of the mercantilist mentality, which was a residue of the feudal guild system, which was crony capitalism before there was capitalism.
Indeed. But at the end he blames the conservatives for this antiquated and corrupt system.
It actually doesn't matter what they said. It's the principle of endemic corruption brought about by outsized campaign contributions that you don't seem to understand.
Campaign contributions are already limited. And every presidential candidate (save one... :) ) since the 70s has accepted public funding and its spending limits. So you must be talking about something else...
[ExxonMobile is] just an example. It actually doesn't matter what they said.
An example of
what?
It's becomes impossible for the voice of the real common man to be heard through all the oil.
That's because they're riding the bus! :) The windows on modern buses don't open (except in emergencies); you'd have to ride along with them, if you wanted to hear what they say...
But -seriously- you're veering into the No True Scotsman fallacy! Whatever definition of "the common man" you give will run afoul of established Constitutional principles.
Am I wrong, in assuming you'd have no problems with that, so long as
your "rights" are protected? :)
But,
Sang, the path to that road has a toll gate: The Amendment process.
(Although I, personally, liked Derbyshire's
tweak: Limit the franchise to the middle one or two standard deviations of average IQ... Keep the dolts of both tails away from The Common Good determination!)
BTW: What's your problem with oil? (Black Gold, Texas Tea...)
But -seriously- you're veering into the No True Scotsman fallacy! Whatever definition of "the common man" you give will run afoul of established Constitutional principles.
And you seem to be perilously close to confusing a corporate entity or cartel of them that might legally be a person with an actual common man. This is how conservatives tend to trip themselves up. I understand. How do you determine that one faction is composed of the common men and the other isn't? But at some point common sense has to kick in and say Exxonmobile, et al are not the common man, but corporate interests that corrupt the political process. If most of the corporations were physical people, they would need to be locked away for their social-pathology. Ever wonder why the GOP is so against campaign finance reform? Because it would negatively impact their chief benefactors influence on the political process. That's what this is really about. Their is no deep principal involved,
Am I wrong, in assuming you'd have no problems with that, so long as your "rights" are protected?
My rights, no quotes, were protected and enhanced by the GOP itself. They had to pass certain things into state constitutional amendments to pacify religious voters. Oops, they didn't listen when we told them from the word go those amendments were unconstitutional as hell. That's what happens when you piss all over the constitution just to appease one sub-set of voters, huh? But it didn't matter. The GOP had already bamboozled the Christians into voting for them so they could go on with their real business of protecting their corporate patrons and maintaining the neo-mercantilism described above.
But at some point common sense has to kick in and say Exxonmobile, et al are not the common man, but corporate interests that corrupt the political process.
I understand your
et al. for what it is: A bill of attainder... Corporate interests? You simply mean that groups that (might) disagree with you have the right to shut up! Or else... :)
Of course, I find the corrupting influence in a place you refuse to see: Favoritism (and its concomitant coercion) by the government. Limit the power of the government, and you've effectively forstalled the worst influences and avoided the effects of corruption.
Conservatives, Republicans and Christians need not apply for
their 1st Amendment rights, eh?
Oh, you only mean successful businesses? What do they say that bothers you so much?
Conservatives, Republicans and Christians need not apply for their 1st Amendment rights, eh?
Oh, you only mean successful businesses? What do they say that bothers you so much?
Isn't that odd? Didn't I just read a post from
you that seemed to indicate that I, as a Christian, had little to say because (a) I'm just waiting for the Rapture anyway and (b) if I do say anything, I risk my congregation's tax-exempt status even though I have no position other than being a member? I could be wrong, but it seems to me Sang is more willing to allow me my first-amendment rights than you are, ol' bean.
Well,
young bean, did I mention bringing the coercive force of the government to bear against you? :) (You should be aware of the difference…)
When I mention your congregation's tax-exempt status, I refer to recent (the latest administration's
administration -for which, noone is responsible!- of certain federal agencies…). You know that; or you confess an ignorance and disconnect that only feeds my disillusionment with the American polity…
Still, I'd have you (and
Sang) and almost anyone I know and that he and you know…) determine public policy. But within the confines of the rights and "privileges" codified by our Constitution, if you please!
I could be wrong, but it seems to me Sang is more willing to allow me my first-amendment rights than you are, ol' bean.
You are most certainly wrong: You only need to oppose what he wants or argue against what he's for…
As far as I'm concerned, say what you want. Use your money or your ability to convince others to spend theirs in furtherance of whatever "floats your boat"… (I'm unlikely to be swayed by slick TV commercials or bold-print newspaper editorials. Or "right-wing blogs" —
Sang's latest mode of
demonization…) But I'd ask: In what way did you think that "Sang is more willing to allow me my first-amendment rights than you are"?
Seriously,
mjm, playing Devil's Advocate doesn't suit you! :)
BTW: I am opposed to the current law, that precludes -by law- pastors from talking "politics"… (Ask
Sang if he is!) I think it a gross violation of the !st Amendment!
Two recent wrinkles: The right to sue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/abortion-returns-to-the-supreme-court/) and the right to "free exercise" of religion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/houston-mayor-criticizes-city-lawyers-subpoenas-of-sermons/) have elements of corporate rights, I think.
The issues are complex, and some here might just want to pursue policy objectives… As you know, I'm opposed to such a viewpoint; and I'm convinced that some here are consistently in favor of it.
When have I ever asked for government's power to be wielded, to prevent my opponents from speaking or contributing their money to support their causes? (mjm, I ask you specifically…) Sang, what -I wonder- really animates you animus?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me Sang is more willing to allow me my first-amendment rights than you are, ol' bean.
I live and breath First Amendment rights, particularly free speech. I happen to disagree him that the largest corporations on the planet with almost the entirety of the state legislators and our Federal senators in their pockets are the common man.
Still, I'd have you (and Sang) and almost anyone I know and that he and you know…) determine public policy. But within the confines of the rights and "privileges" codified by our Constitution, if you please!
Within the constitution, it's all but impossible to prevent the states from passing regulation that "happens" to favor incumbent businesses and restrict new competition. Again, see George Will's
rent seeking article. The Federal government can do via the "necessary and proper laws clause" and the "Interstate commerce clause." In principle I would agree to limit what the governments can do to favor the corporations,but history and the both constitution tell us that it's a no-go. The only remedy would seem to be campaign finance reform. That is unless you want to change constitution itself and in a way the weakens states rights. Good luck with that one. Oh, change the state constitutions? The Kochs can by the legislators with their pocket change...
You're all over the board here,
Sang… But let me focus on your (the) main point:
The only remedy would seem to be campaign finance reform.
You seem to want to include as part of campaigning any communication, about issues and candidates, by anyone — excepting individuals, provided they aren't too rich…
That's not a subtly. That communications might "influence" elections is all that is required for them to run afoul of S.J. Res. 19!
It's a plain attempt to obviate the 1st Amendment's Free Speech guarantee. (I don't seem to recall where, exactly, the class of "common men" is specified as privileged -and all others dis-privileged… Or where, in the Constitution, Congress or state legislatures are granted the power to determine such classes.) And your support for it is intimately connected to your policy preferences: That is, you don't like the
content of some speech; so, you'd preclude it.
By implication, those who'd speak in opposition to your preferred policies
should be constrained — because, why?
They're rich? They're conservative? They're Republican? They're religious Christians? They're incorporated?
What test would you have? :)
—————————————————————
Another
wrinkle: Wouldn't the government, at one or another level, have to determine what constitutes
legitimate press, to apply the bill's last portion?
Licensing, perhaps… :)
I submit that such is a can of worms that no one wants to open!
I don't seem to recall where, exactly, the class of "common men" is specified as privileged -and all others dis-privileged…
I didn't say they were. I just pointed out the obvious fact that the giant corporations aren't the common man after to pontificated about the rights of the common man. You're opposed to rent seeking, yet against any efforts to do something about it. Typical Republican mentality. Oh that's right, limit the governments ability to assist entrenched corporate interest did their ditches even deeper. But you have a problem. Most of the rent seeking is done at the state and local levels. Suddenly we have another state's rights issue, since no state would agree to this claiming they have the right to compete with other states to have X Corp build a factory (in fact, they'd be correct.) So what do you do? There are a couple options. Limit the amount of influence the special interests have on politicians or limit the amount of money the political campaign can spend.
That doesn't mean limiting free speech, you can set up automated tweets and whatnot all day long for almost nothing. This bizarre idea that money = free speech is so 20th century. Give it a couple decades, and I promise future SCOTUS rulings on this will be legalese for "Are you fucking retarded?" That is if justices take up the case at all, after the unfavorable ruling on campaign finance in the lower court. This the 21st century. The future is now. Expensive television ads that people mute out are being replaced by interactive communication with your target audience. The number of people you can reach is no longer limited by your assets. Therefore the 21st century solution says that you can indeed limit campaign donations, and it has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. Right now, we happen to have a SCOTUS with an old fashioned mindset on what it takes to spread your message.
Am I wrong? Am I crazy? If I told you 20 years ago that gay marriage would be law in 31 states in 2014 and was all but inevitable in all 50, you would have thought I fell out of my tree and hit my head. A few years ago, it was a "radical liberal" notion. "Liberals" think a generation if not more in the future; conservatives think a generation or more in the past. That's why "liberals" shape the future. Have you noticed this? Beginning against slavery was "liberal" idea. Equal protection under the law for blacks, likewise. Universal suffrage.... Get it? In the end, conservatives lose every time. And none of the disasters conservatives warned of happened.
The future is the common man, be he liberal or conservative or middle of the road, have as loud a voice as Exxonmobile, etc and the corporate oligarchy that dares call itself "Republic" will crumble. The democracy is coming. Don't like it? Pack your bags and move to Russia.
You're opposed to rent seeking, yet against any efforts to do something about it.
I'm opposed to regulation that pretends to do something about it.
Remove the incentives… You say it can't be done; I believe you believe it: All the folks you vote for -for other reasons?- are the worst offenders — only, you don't think so; because they "talk the talk" on the social issues you care about, and at least appoint Progressive judges!
Yes, that's the only reasonable way: Remove the incentives. But you wouldn't care to do that, because — well, who would
control the market…!?
If "the democracy is coming," your position becomes precarious… You don't see that?
————————————————————————————————
BTW: I'd agree, that the "influence" of big spenders is becoming less important due to technology… Why are you, then, so opposed to them spending their money fruitlessly? :)
I don't need to move to Russia. I can participate in politics right here (even in California…). Don't you argue that, if I've been successful, then my "influence" should be curtailed by the government?
I think I understand your incoherence… I think you never will.
I don't need to move to Russia.
Need? why "need"?
I think it would be a pleasure, both for Russians and Americans if you did it.
Also for you. :)
You'll find there much more structured minds.
Course you will not find "democracy in America" there. Or anywhere else, impossibilities are difficult things to find.
and at least appoint Progressive judges!
Still haven't learned? The same sex marriage bans where thrown out as quickly by conservative judges. This mostly conservative SCOTUS wouldn't even hear the the states' cases to keep the marriage bans. The point being, the value of the judges ideology has been greatly overestimated by all sides. They have to side not with the right or the left, but with the constitution. The judicial branch by necessity is more politically independent than the other two branches of government.
But you wouldn't care to do that, because — well, who would control the market…!?
What market do I have a chance in hell of controlling? Or even want to control? C'mon, man. Maybe you're thinking metaphorically, the marketplace of ideas? The Right has all but handed that over.
Don't you argue that, if I've been successful, then my "influence" should be curtailed by the government?
I just gave you a glimpse of how it's impossible for the government to curtail your influence, not without somehow trying to censor the internet. You're still confusing personal success with a entrenched corporate entity who's goal to use the government to crush the competition before it has a chance to flower. In doing so, they're holding back the economy in addition to the progress of their respective industry.
I think I understand your incoherence… I think you never will.
I'm not incoherent. Certainly the corporate interests have the right to request certain regulation, use social network tools in the attempt to get the public on their side, and buy television ads, put columns in the newspapers, etc. Free speech intact, check. But this crony capitalism is not free speech.
Which crony capitalism, Sang? Would you care to specify the abuses that cause you so much ire?
Crony Capitalism is an equal-opportunity employer anyway. It doesn't care whether the politician is a Democrat or a Republican.
Illinois has had problems with its governors. George Ryan (R) was voted out and replaced by Rod Blagojevich (D). Both of these governors were notably corrupt and engaged in "pay to play" politics. If you were a construction contractor looking to do business with Illinois, you had to kick in something to the governor's re-election campaign. That's just the way it was. The thing finally came to a head when Blago decided it would be a great idea to sell Obama's US Senate seat to the next occupant of that seat. You know what happened next: something that was intended to be private-hush-hush got blown into the major media, Blago got impeached and then booted out of office, indicted, tried, convicted and served time. The hapless fellow who got Obama's seat only got to serve out the remaining term, after that his name was so soiled by the way he got the seat that he couldn't get re-elected even by his friends, and we got a governor since who has turned in a rather lackluster performance. But-- that's crony politics/crony capitalism in Illinois.
I feel your pain,
mjm — all the way out here in California! But I don't see a
federal problem, there or here… Do you?
———————————————————
This mostly conservative SCOTUS […]
:))
You're not looking very hard.
The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
And that includes corporations which are now people. :o
Welcome to the frey, Jaybro! Which corporations get your goat? NYT? NEA? PBS? AFSCME? Kaiser? AARP? :)
—————————————————————————————
@mjm: You mean, Illinois can't help itself? If so, why not?
:))
The laughing fool doesn't know the majority of the justices are Republicans. Actually, he might be right. Scalia isn't really a conservative, but a rightwing nutcase :)
Would you care to specify the abuses that cause you so much ire?
No. Was I
supposed to have supported Solyandra or something? Specific incidents are a distraction from the problem of legislaters not representing the people, but the corporations and other special interests.
Oak, I thought you are old enough to know by now that we have the best Congress that money can buy. For sure, most if not all of the members of both houses are bought and paid for, corporate money sees to that.
Sang does have a point. If I write a letter to my senators and congressperson, it's a question if the letter will even be read by the honorable people involved. If Exxon, for example, writes/phones/emails/texts these same august individuals, the corporation will get a much more enthusiastic response. I can't buy senators and congresspersons like Exxon can-- it's that simple. I'm just a "common person", Exxon is a "Corporate Person".
OK, here's an example to make it easy. I get into the ring to fight against the Incredible Hulk. Place your money, who do you think is gonna win?
My letter is going up against Exxon's lobbyist. Who do you think is gonna win?
the problem of legislaters not representing the people, but the corporations and other special interests
…is probably not entirely new, nor a peculiarly Republican "problem"… My preferred solution is to keep political "fingers" as much out of the economy's pies as possible. Whereas you just want to start cutting off "fingers"…
When you say "the people, but the corporations and other special interests" you mean
prople with whom you disagree… (Try to define it, in
any other way… I'll wait.)
This is a fundamental difference between us,
Sang: Your go-to recourse is first and foremost government coercion; for me, that's the last remedy.
Specific incidents are a distraction
That reminds me of other "Crusades"… "It's the seriousness of the charge! Not the evidence…" It's all of a piece,
Sang. What you mean is, you don't know why some people disagree with you; so, they must be evil — or something! Hence, the might of the government should be brought to bear to Stop Them! (Bills of Attainder.)
(And if you need to lie, to further your
cause — well, that's politics! :) )
If "specific incidents" are mere distractions, what
should we be paying attention to?
————————————————————————————————————
OK, here's an example to make it easy. I get into the ring to fight against the Incredible Hulk. Place your money, who do you think is gonna win?
Thanks for making it easy!
mjm, your vote and your political will and efforts will have the effect you
can manage; if you'd prefer not to do much, why would you expect much from such? (I'd agree, that most citizens
shouldn't have to do much, to secure their rights, and a decent government. But look who they've voted into office and given power to…) The Democrats still receive 90+ % of the "black" vote! That's just one of the reasons that Ayn Rand's "Who is John Galt?" resonates…
Kissy-face isn't the most important part of politics, is it? :)
If you've decided to be stupid and call on Big Brother to save you from yourself… Well, I don't know how to continue talking to you. (I don't trust your determination of "our betters" and I'd not give my life over to the gang you'd be "comfortable with" — no matter how much better they seemed, to you.)
Live in your state, as best you can. Criticize mine, as often as you'd like. Tell me what you
think. I have no problem with that.
Tell me that "you're"
(in honor of your attention to Sang's arguments…) problems require a massive federal intervention -which might be coming my way- and… Yeah! I've got a problem!
It could only be cognizance… "You are" is slightly different from "your" —
Sang doesn't make such distinctions; you'd like to follow his example?! :)
Your example is one that
Sang and his ilk
really like! A comic book character… Time was, such were called
strawmen. But logic is neither taught nor learned, nowadays.
I don't know what to tell you — that you'd understand. (If you want to be one of the "cool kids" you'll have to accept their — peccadilloes. I won't.)
My preferred solution is to keep political "fingers" as much out of the economy's pies as possible. Whereas you just want to start cutting off "fingers"…
I'm not cutting off fingers or any other body part. I am questioning how you propose to keep all levels of government from being able to pass legislation that happens to favor entrenched interests. What's your plan? Get the states to pass legislation against their ability to regulate in favor of the rent-seekers, etc as if that will happen?
Your go-to recourse is first and foremost government coercion; for me, that's the last remedy.
Gibberish. I'm arguing against government coercion and regulation intended to stifle competition, not for it. That's only slightly less silly than your charge against me that I want to place an income gap on the first amendment. I have no idea what your smoked to hallucinate that up.
f you've decided to be stupid and call on Big Brother to save you from yourself… Well, I don't know how to continue talking to you.
Who is doing this? He's not. I'm not and I'm trying to keep the corporations from being able to do it.
Your example is one that Sang and his ilk really like!
You don't even know what my ilk is.
I am questioning how you propose to keep all levels of government from being able to pass legislation that happens to favor entrenched interests.
You want a "magic" solution…
Why must
all levels of government be curtailed? Shouldn't that be left up to the people involved?
But I'd ask you what benefit you think barring "corporations" from promulgating political speech yields? (Again, I'd remind you: Direct contributions to campaigns are already capped…)
I'm arguing against government coercion and regulation intended to stifle competition, not for it.
I must have missed that… Where, exactly, did you ever argue against coercion and regulation? :)
That's only slightly less silly than your charge against me that I want to place an income gap [cap?] on the first amendment.
Hm. Your animus against the Koch brothers belies your words. (And your silence about,
e.g., Soros, some-what supports them — but leads to a Bills of Attainder problem.)
————————————————————————————
You don't even know what my ilk is.
In a sense, that's true: You consistently say you haven't said what in fact you have said, that you don't believe what you've professed, that you don't mean…
Wait! That's a somewhat different
ilk than what I'd referred to… :)
————————————————————————————
It would be great fun to read your comments on this report (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8af3d005-1337-4bc3-bcd6-be947c523439)!
This is surely worth returning to:
Am I wrong? Am I crazy? If I told you 20 years ago that gay marriage would be law in 31 states in 2014 and was all but inevitable in all 50, you would have thought I fell out of my tree and hit my head. A few years ago, it was a "radical liberal" notion. "Liberals" think a generation if not more in the future; conservatives think a generation or more in the past. That's why "liberals" shape the future. Have you noticed this? Beginning against slavery was "liberal" idea. Equal protection under the law for blacks, likewise. Universal suffrage.... Get it? In the end, conservatives lose every time. And none of the disasters conservatives warned of happened.
First, let me ask you: How many states have sanctioned SSM by legislation or referendum?
(We can proceed from there, if you deign to answer…)
You must be busy, Sang; I hope it's for something profitable…
But I'll ask the second question: If Liberals (or Progressives…) are so prescient, why is it that -after most of a century of power- we're in a state that even you find intolerable? :)
Your "generation ahead" sounds, to me, a lot like the Five Year Plans of… Oh, hell! You're not a secret communist Stalinist, are you? :)
If Liberals (or Progressives…) are so prescient, why is it that -after most of a century of power- we're in a state that even you find intolerable?
Here's problem, but it's not yours alone. Liberals, in fact, are for smaller government and actually have a fair in common with Libertarians. Progressives are ones that demand direct government action for there agenda. Therefore the liberal and libertarian would have the law struck down as unconstitutional; the progressive have a new law made.
Your "generation ahead" sounds, to me, a lot like the Five Year Plans of… Oh, hell! You're not a secret communist Stalinist, are you?
It's just a difference in thinking. Almost by definition, the conservative looks to the past for answers. Sometimes those old answers work, but other times they're obsolete - society changed, the understanding of how economic systems changed, technology changed ( the tax cut might fail to induce hiring because the workers have been replaced by robots or computers, so there's no one to hire.) The non-conservative sees these changes coming from a mile away and starts his response on the leading edge of the evolution.
This isn't to be confused with political conservationism. Ie, a businessman might vote Republican, but his thinking might be somewhat in the future as well so he makes changes before they're needed. When reality catches up to his vision, he'll crush the competition. Witness Walmart and its distribution system crushing more conservative Kmart. On the political front, we can use gay marriage again. Some of us saw society becoming more tolerant of the LGBT community years ahead of time and made plans. Meanwhile the conservatives said "Oh, it's just a poll. Here's the errors in its methodology..." and "No one I know..." (unfortunately everyone they knew went to the same megachurch, or some other issue that sample not representative of society) and were 100% wrong. Put your fingers on society's pulse but don't just check its current heart rate but calculate what its going to be.
It's just a difference in thinking. Almost by definition, the conservative looks to the past for answers. […] The non-conservative sees these changes coming from a mile away and starts his response on the leading edge of the evolution.
I'd recommend that you stop reading pop-psychology,
Sang. Perhaps, pop-science, too: Evolution isn't synonymous with progress…
Your informed answer to my question about SSM and the number of states which allow it, by legislation or referendum, is…?
So reading the writing on the wall and knowing how to read the data on social trends is pop psychology now, as is keeping abreast of the of new and upcoming changes in your chosen field?
There's a difference between basket-weaving as therapy and basket-weaving as an occupation, surely? No doubt, you still consider The Bell Curve (which you've not read…) an atrocious scientific racism screed! :)
For something lighter, might I suggest a little essay by Theodore Dalrymple called The Twin Poles of Existence (http://takimag.com/article/the_twin_poles_of_existence_theodore_dalrymple)?
After that brief excursion, you might consider answering my simple question: How many states have sanctioned SSM by legislation or referendum?
Why are you pressing that issue? Denial that the majority of Americans support allowing equal marriage? How many states passed interracial marriage by referendum or legislation at the time?
There's a difference between basket-weaving as therapy and basket-weaving as an occupation, surely?
WTF are you babbling about? I gave you a specific example of one retailer that was able to think ahead and introduce state of the art distribution systems and overwhelm its more conservative competition with the improved efficiencies and you want to go on about pop psychology and basket weaving. Speaking of the
Bell Curve , which I read as class assignment, those with a higher IQ are more likely to spot changes in technology and society and respond accordingly. You think this is about political conservative and liberalism, but it's not. It's the obvious notion that keeping an old mindset in a changing world will doom you to failure.
As always,
Sang: Unresponsive!
The questionnaire so beloved of the "social sciences" is beset with myriad quibbles. You know them well, if you've told the truth about your educational background… The justification of using common terms in un-common ways falls to those who'd do so, no?
I doubt it's paucity of imagination (lack of neologismic creativity…) that has your betters use "conservative" and "liberal" as terms of art! Nor do I believe you accept them as such, without salivating over their "so-subtly" implied and half-heartedly disclaimed connotations' put-downs.
Why are you pressing that issue? Denial that the majority of Americans support allowing equal marriage? How many states passed interracial marriage by referendum or legislation at the time?
Because you're trying to "have your cake, and eat it too!" You claim the tide has turned, democratically, while knowing full-well that, democratically, it remains inexorable.
If you push the metaphor hard enough, you'll make your point! (But you surely know how much I despise pushing metaphors too far…)
Since most people are law-abiding, judge-made laws will be followed. But -as you know- we didn't have such "sophisticated" polling, back when miscegenation was an issue. Also -as you know- you can count the number I asked for on your thumbs. (I assume you are
all thumbs, for the sake of argument — the number reasonably anticipates your
mutant past… :) So: Twelve or thirteen; a far cry from a majority of our 57 states, no?) I don't believe inter-racial marriage and SSM to be equivalent; and your arguments (…forthcoming?) don't convince me:
You don't have anything to say, beyond "I want what I want!" (Tantrums won't convince the likes of me.) Adding "But s/he has it!" doesn't make you seem more mature or reasonable.
(Try extricating yourself from the "transgender" and "multi-spouse" arguments! If society's
interest in progeny is unseemly or irrational, you're half-way to making your point… And losing it entirely, if you're at all convincing!
*)
Which brings us back to your "campaign finance" canard: Would you exclude all non-profits, too? Or would you want to exclude only those that disagree with
your policy preferences?
Inquiring minds want to know! (You dug this hole yourself…)
Shouldn't we debar all but private individuals from
facilitating political speech? Hm. But the Koch brothers…!
———————————————————————————————————
* Would you prefer a tax/benefits regime where no domestic arrangements are in any way privileged? :) If so, you'd remind me of Kirby J. Hensley — that renowned preacher of the Gospel of the Envy! (Yes, I knew him personally… And his family. And some of his "business" associates. But that was in a "galaxy far, far away"… Although I can still walk to his headquarters/church within half a day, even at my slowed pace. :) )
Because you're trying to "have your cake, and eat it too!" You claim the tide has turned, democratically, while knowing full-well that, democratically, it remains inexorable.
That's the old assumption the 18th century that a democracy can't have constitutional protections for the minorities. The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better. This "The US is a republic and not a democracy" is dangerous. Some of the worst, most brutal dictatorships in modern times have been republics. What on earth makes you folks think that calling it a republic protects freedom?
The multi-spouse idiocy is a red herring. How even does that, besides some old Mormon cults (even though the mainstream LDS church polygamy back in 1890) ? A few cults already doing breaking the law is not a reason to deny equal protection under the law for nine million people is the US (http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm). That's like saying all guns should be banned because a small percentage of gun owners go on to commit crimes.
That's the old assumption the 18th century that a democracy can't have constitutional protections for the minorities.
Eighteenth century? :right: New Amsterdam was open to Jews in spite of its governor being a notorious anti-Semite because the Dutch republic was a democracy* under rule of law.
The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.
There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong. :P
* NB Not exactly a
modern democracy, mind you. ;)
New Amsterdam was open to Jews in spite of its governor being a notorious anti-Semite because the Dutch republic was a democracy* under rule of law.
The founding fathers of the US said things along the lines of ""Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner..." and "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.." (Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson respectively.) They weren't ignoramuses, but I still think they were operating off old ideas of what a democracy was. If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt that, those ideas were antiquated even at the time.
Oakdale, a democracy and a republic aren't mutually exclusive regardless of right-wing gibberish going around these days. You can have representative government and a constitution maintaining rule of law and the rights for all of its citizens. It only get hard when you have interests only concerned with corporate profit, but less so in individual rights having this much sway over the government. (Oh dear, did I "demonize" somebody again :p )
The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.
There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong. :P
IIRC that (roman) republic vs. (greek) democracy thing was just an example Jefferson used to argue for minority rights anyway, probably because he assumed that his audience would be reasonably familiar with them. Of course a bunch of bible wankers took it as gospel, context be damned.
The founding fathers of the US said things along the lines of ""Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner..." and "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.." (Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson respectively.) They weren't ignoramuses, but I still think they were operating off old ideas of what a democracy was. If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt that, those ideas were antiquated even at the time.
I don't know if it was the case at the time, but anything that might take away rights (e.g., changes to the constitution) typically has provisions so that it'd be more akin to 75% taking away the rights of the 25%. If memory doesn't betray me, as far as real-world inspiration goes the US constitution was inspired primarily by the "constitutions"* of the UK and the Dutch Republic, so it doesn't seem implausible to assume that the Dutch republic had some kind of supermajority concept.
With regard to New Amsterdam, or rather the Dutch Republic at large, you have that whole idea of separation of powers and rule of law. The governor/president/monarch may very well want something, but courts can shut it down for obvious reasons. This was in contrast to the many absolute monarchies around Europe, but it was hardly unique either. It went back to the 12th/13th century and had its counterpart in England in the Magna Carta. The reason I explicitly mention New Amsterdam is because New Netherland and its tradition of relative democracy and liberty had a much more profound and lasting influence on America than whatever happened in Europe.
The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.
There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong. :P
IIRC that (roman) republic vs. (greek) democracy thing was just an example Jefferson used to argue for minority rights anyway, probably because he assumed that his audience would be reasonably familiar with them. Of course a bunch of bible wankers took it as gospel, context be damned.
There's also too much taking Plato at face value there.
* I believe they weren't called such a thing, at least not officially, but it came down to much the same thing in practice.
Oakdale, a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive […]
Did you, perhaps, leave out a word,
Sang? :)
There's no more democracy in America, the cassete was changed.
Now they are a republic (whatever that means).
I wonder who changed the record, the "Get Smart" agent Bush or the "wow, I'm black and nobelized" Obama.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all, it never did.
There's no more democracy in America, the cassete was changed.
Now they are a republic (whatever that means).
I wonder who changed the record, the "Get Smart" agent Bush or the "wow, I'm black and nobelized" Obama.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all, it never did.
To you, & the other 6 billion on the planet maybe not, but to us 325 million or so, it means everything! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/usa-flag-89.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/signsandflags2.gif)
Kind of arrogant and selfish attitude that last line.
And this is even more so when one considers the record of the Republic that isn't a democracy Smiley. You arrogantly stride the world and try to force everyone else into your way of doing things. If they don't they will get boycotted, undermined, threatened or invaded. Equally,your military industry is huge and the corporates are all over the same 65 billion making great profits whilst your citizens see the gap between rich and poor now greatly widened as never before. So it is okay for you lot to make your big profits and at the same time you say the same world is unimportant. And just look at the country with that326 million people. Over 40 million on food stamps hundreds of thousands losing homes, corproates get away with just about anything. Increasingly police forces loking like the army whichj says something negative about the place.
If you had kep your noses out of the business of other places and concentrated instead on internal affairs there would be less wars in the planet and more Americans would not be suffering. Trillions in debt and no sign of an end to state of the nation. Seems to me that the republican Party tradition has become a fractured, selfish, militarist regime and the Democrats? They aren't much better. Racism and greed is endemic. Yep that comment was arrogant, mawkishness passing for patriotic and claiming to be democratic. In fairness thanks for the laugh!
So right you are RJ....America is not a Democracy (we do have a democrat Party, but that has nothing to with Democracy).
We have a Constitutional Republic, which utilizes a special form or aspect of Democratic Principals ....
You may have heard it said by us on many occasion "..Our form of Democracy.." .... which as you must know by now was purposefully designed from it's beginnings to be quite distinct to the form of Democracy you personally wish for the world.
The far overwhelming majority of Americans (95%+ wouldn't be an exaggeration) are quite happy with acknowledging our differences, & care not to change in order to conform with you, or anyone else for that matter.
Much to your chagrin, we Americans love our Constitution --- accept it's limitations & flaws, along with it's magnificence & uniqueness --- & we would gladly lay down our lives in it's defense, rather than submit to any inferior alternative.
Some may differ from this view, but that is the beauty of it's significance, we can freely debate the issues of OUR Constitution --- as we robustly do, day in & day out --- all the while all sides accept it's position in our lives while doing so.
So gristle in your own fat because you'll never be able to change us. Don't feel sorry for us, for we hold your ill begotten concerns with contempt, because we wouldn't have it any other way.
Us Americans want what we have, aspire to accumulate more, & will never ever give in for any less.
So, in that, may I respectfully say to you my dear fellow, take your democracy &, delicately but firmly, kindly shove it up your ass as deeply as your arm can push. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)
There's no more democracy in America, the cassete was changed.
Isn't there? On Tuesday, in Nevada we not only vote on candidates but on Prop 3, a 2% tax on business profits above 1,000,000. Seems like a bad idea, but the fact that we can vote on our taxes starts to smack of direct democracy at least on the state level.
What I don't understand about the candidates for the various offices is the mudslinging. It's been going on forever, but it really makes little sense. Think of it this way, Ford doesn't try to sell its cars by badmouthing Chevy. Instead, they play up the strengths of their product. Likewise, two candidates badmouthing shredding each other leaves no reason to want to vote for either one. Take the Attorney General race. One is supposedly so unqualified that the law office he used to work for almost terminated him for incompetence at his performance review and on that review said he lacks basic knowledge of the law. The other is supposedly corrupt. So who to pick? No wonder voter turnout is so low. In 2016, we get to vote for a new president. With that office, I think it's true that nobody that should be president even wants the job.
Would you -for crying out loud- answer a simple question, Sang? Did you actually mean it, when you said "a democracy and a republic aren't mutually exclusive"? (Oh. I see. You've used the Way Back Machine to answer… How very Orwellian of you, and typical. :) You're a n't, aren't you? :) ) Go ahead and report this post, too: You're Nevada's equivalent of Scotland's Howie… His ham-fisted typing is akin to your thick-headed biased thought patterns. But he's more honest. And he actually manages to say what he means more so than you…
:) :) :)
Why in the name of (insert deity) would I answer answer a question that just a snide comment about a typo, as if your grammar and typing are perfect? Let me know when you have something to contribute.
One is supposedly so unqualified that the law office he used to work for almost terminated him for incompetence at his performance review and on that review said he lacks basic knowledge of the law. The other is supposedly corrupt. So who to pick
I left off you trailing question mark, because it really wasn't intended: You are not telling us something about your thought-process,
Sang…
I told you to let me know when you have something to contribute, which you clearly don't. Shoo, fly.
Why in the name of (insert deity) would I answer answer a question that just a snide comment about a typo, as if your grammar and typing are perfect? Let me know when you have something to contribute.
Dude (or dudette, as the case may be…), leaving out a "not" is hardly inconsequential — in polite society; but you insist on being rude.
You'd "answer answer" a simple question, because you're a person. You'd not, because
your an agenda an orifice and fasciae. And you can't seem to get beyond that.
[Your most recent post (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=495.msg29249#msg29249) is evidence…}
I'm going to play OakdaleFTL for second.
You are not telling us something about your thought-process, Sang…
Did you mean "thought process" ,
Oak ?
See how petty and stupid this, Oakdale? Next time maybe I'll read a bunch of leftist crapola and invent your meanings for you, instead of reading what you wrote. After that, I'll accuse you of being dishonest when it becomes blindingly obvious that your ideas don't match my preconceived notions.
You damn well know it wasn't a real question, but you being snide yet again. In polite society, one doesn't feel the need to point out all of another person's mistakes. Indeed, doing so is a sign of one's own insecurity, pettiness or some poisonous combination of both.
Is this thread about democracy in America or about spelling and grammar?
I wasn't quite sure where Sang was going when he said "a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive"… (He felt obliged to call such -or its contrary!- "right-wing gibberish"!) So, I asked him if he'd perhaps left out a word.
It seems he did.
I'd intended this thread to be about the recurrent clash between the 1st Amendment right to free speech and "campaign finance reform" — and the contorted reasoning that finds the Citizens United decision an assault on democracy (!).
Perhaps when Sang gets over his hissy-fit he'll return to the topic…
In the meantime, there's an op-ed in the New York Times that proposes another constitutional amendment to alleviate…the horrible impediments to effective administration that our midterms ensure! (See it here (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?_r=1).)
In essence, the authors (without saying so directly…) think we should adopt a parliamentary system, because governing is too hard under our out-dated constitutional constraints!
No doubt, the quadrennial call to scrap the electoral college will begin on Wednesday…
Until then you'll question his grammar? :lol:
I'd question his grampa too, if I thought I'd get a straight answer thereby… :)
Define straight!
Tee-hee. :cheers:
Define straight!
Gladly: Un-bent!
How he manages to bear the weight of so many misconceptions is miraculous; but it hobbles his steps to a shuffling gait and focusses his gaze on his feet… (I'd bet he'd chortle approvingly at this latest tidbit (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/02/049219/reactions-to-disgusting-images-predict-a-persons-political-ideology)! Would you take that bet? :) )
[glow=green,2,300]GOTCHA!![/glow]
[glow=black,2,300]OakdaleFTL[/glow](https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/PointRt.gif)(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBO2dVN.gif&hash=4e0c994eab7168db17b5e3c7ef382145" rel="cached" data-hash="4e0c994eab7168db17b5e3c7ef382145" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rBO2dVN.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/PointLft.gif)[glow=black,2,300]OakdaleFTL[/glow]
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/DemsVsGOP.gif)
It seems he did.
I'd intended this thread to be about the recurrent clash between the 1st Amendment right to free speech and "campaign finance reform" — and the contorted reasoning that finds the Citizens United decision an assault on democracy (!).
Perhaps when Sang gets over his hissy-fit he'll return to the topic…
So what? My thoughts got a little ahead of my fingers. It would seem your fallback for lacking of a constructive argument against me is to play grammar nazi. You do this so often there was little reason for me to believe it was a legitimate question and more of a cheap shot.
Now onto free speech. Writing your official requesting a certain action is free speech, as it composing a blog post or newspaper article. There are many other actions that constitute free speech and freedom of the press. Writing a check is not among them. This isn't to say XYZ Corp shouldn't be allowed to donate to a campaign, nor that a billionaire should be denied either. It simply means there should be limits so the voice of the people the politicians are supposed to represent doesn't get drowned how by the sound of Representative Hogg's bank account being filled. Failing that, perhaps there should be limits on how much can be spent, including the spending done by 527 groups.
This really should not be partisan. Historically, Democrats outraised and outspent their Republican rivals (as well as the other way around to avoid confusion) and therefore won the election But it seems to be conservative Republicans that are against campaign reform. That must be so the Kochs can buy another astroturf Tea Party candidate, although in theory Bill Gates or George Soros can buy just as many astroturf Democratic candidates. Between the Liberal and Conservative billionaires and the SuperPACs, when do the members of congress address the concerns of the living, physical people?
Now if the United States is a Democracy or Republic is a matter of semantics. The characteristics of a democracy are now present in the US: equality under the law, the right to petition elected officials, human rights and due process of the law, etc. You can also call it a republic on the basis of representative government. That said, a republic doesn't necessarily guarantee the above liberties. In some cases it means you get to vote for a member of the parliamentary body as long as he (a republic can still outlaw a she) belongs to the only legal political party - on that chokes the country in its iron grip. But the US is not that type of republic and can just as easily and correctly be called a democracy. In the beginning, it was strictly a republic with slaves, free blacks not having the vote, women not having the vote, not equal protection under the law for free African Americans. In the past couple centuries democracy has grown and still continues to do so. This notion that corporations are people is not popular will not stand and the precedent of Citizens United eventually will be overturned. Yes, Oakdale it can be, although it will again take the SCOTUS to do it.
Now what's Oakdale's answer? That somehow I'm not being honest? That I made typos? Those are the answers of someone that has no answers.
If there were typos above, I missed them… :) It was a pleasure to read a post by you that you yourself read, first! (There! I've satisfied my
cheap shot quota.)
There are many other actions that constitute free speech and freedom of the press. Writing a check is not among them.
Why not?
Are bumper stickers and front yard signs okay? Billboards? How about newspaper ads and circulars? Radio and TV spots?
Donating money to campaigns, parties and "issues" organizations is still considered political speech, and thus a 1st Amendment exercise. Your main reason for opposing such appears to be the "drowning out" of the Voice of the People…
There are two presumptions I'd argue with there: First, that the People (and their various groupings) are disadvantaged unfairly. Their interests and means (investments in time, effort and -yes- money) far outweigh the resources of those you rail against; or they would…
Second, the Wisdom of the People has always been doubted, and for good reason. (Franklin's reply to the question
What form of government the 1787 Convention had given the country was "A Republic, if you can keep it!" He wasn't overly optimistic.) Would you accept plebiscitary democracy, as a replacement for our cumbersome system? :)
There's another "problem" that hides in plain sight: Rational political ignorance… Don't you think this was exacerbated by (1) the popular election of senators and (2) the artificial limitation upon the number of representatives in the House? The larger the constituency, the more diffuse its attention and efficacy, no? :) Among other things, such allows elected officials to operate at a great remove from those they "represent"…
You ask "when do the members of congress address the concerns of the living, physical people?" When such people can effectively hold them accountable, I'd say. It is all-but a paradox that the more
democracy we get the less our interests are served… Hot-button issues (and their propagandists) easily capture an election cycle when government grows beyond the grasp of
your Common Man,
Sang.
You'd demonize the Kochs… For what, exactly? Your go-to term for groups you don't like is
astro-turf, but you would do better to consider
weeds! (Feel free to play with it…) I specially like the -to you?- innocuous insertion of "in theory" when you mention Soros and the influence of
his money!
The characteristics of a democracy are now present in the US: equality under the law, the right to petition elected officials, human rights and due process of the law, etc. You can also call it a republic on the basis of representative government. That said, a republic doesn't necessarily guarantee the above liberties.
It does seem (a derogatory) semantic issue, for you: What examples of those
characteristics of democracy you listed does history provide?
This notion that corporations are people is not popular [; hence, it] will not stand and the precedent of Citizens United eventually will be overturned. Yes, Oakdale it can be, although it will again take the SCOTUS to do it.
Why must it take a SCOTUS to overturn it? Because the constitution's amendment process is too hard, compared to packing the Supreme Court? :)
Don't forget to vote! (I'm off to cast my ballot now.)
In an opinion piece (here (http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/03/with-defeat-looming-democrats-retreat-into-fantasy/)) an analysis of our current situation goes:
[L]iberals [who] treat their positions as if they were free of ideology, [...] can't comprehend why politicians we send to Washington are always uninterested in solving the problems—or, more specifically, the issues he’s identified as critical to our future. After an era of extraordinary action [...] we’re now entering an era of extraordinary inaction.
First of all, two forces slamming into each other is not inaction. But what if people aren’t interested in being governed in such dramatic ways any longer? Maybe Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of politicians planning so much of their future. Or, at the very least, more voters might have come to the realization that politicians aren’t up to the task. Maybe Obamacare killed for decades the idea of big centralized governance? I find the prospect heartening. A real breakthrough. A plan. Left punditry, though, frames this kind of healthy American skepticism about state power as “cynicism.” And if people lose faith in the decency of hyperactive government, the nation is plunged into “malaise.”
I hope the author, David Harsanyi, is correct... And, of course, if he is then the Tea Parties have had a lasting and salubrious effect!
You,
Sang, disagree?
Why not?
Are bumper stickers and front yard signs okay? Billboards? How about newspaper ads and circulars? Radio and TV spots?
Yes, because those don't amount to paying a politician on the promise of a certain actions or votes on votes on particular issue.
Would you accept plebiscitary democracy, as a replacement for our cumbersome system? :)
We have it now, at the state level as you know. The assumption seems to be that if 51% of the people agree on a certain issue, they can run amok with all sorts of nonsense, even dangerous, unconstitutional nonsense. This is way I keep bringing up same-sex marriage as an obvious. There's the democracy to allow people to vote, but that vote won't survive if it's in violation of established rule of law via the constitution. Likewise 51 percent of Californians might vote for severe limitations on the right to bear arms and that vote will be tossed out as violation of the Second Amendment Rights. On the national level, 51% can be misinformed, outright lied to by their news channels and bloggers, or even completely uninformed into making objectively bad choices at the ballot. But why trust the legislators any more? They had millions of dollars "donated" to them on the understanding they would act in accordance to the benefactors wishes. Even uncorrupted, they'll just tend to vote the party line and don't have any more understanding of economics or foreign affairs, etc than we do.
What examples of those characteristics of democracy you listed does history provide?
Those seem so self-evident that I don't understand why you're asking.
Hot-button issues (and their propagandists) easily capture an election cycle when government grows beyond the grasp of your Common Man, Sang.
Really? And I so haven't spent election cycles fighting against a hot button issue... [/end sarcasm] Democracy doesn't necessarily mean doing away with legislative bodies and that all aspects of governance are put on the ballot. It occurs to me that people on the Right don't even know what a democracy is, or a least the difference forums of democracy.
Why must it take a SCOTUS to overturn it? Because the constitution's amendment process is too hard, compared to packing the Supreme Court?
The strange thing is packing the Supreme Court isn't reliable and the justices often have found against the party that put them there. Witness Roberts and the ACA, just for a recent example. But what I was thinking of was the Binding Precedent. Constitutional Amendments should be few and far between. The issue of the day should not wind up in the constitution.
Yes, because those don't amount to paying a politician on the promise of a certain actions or votes on votes on particular issue.
Dude! That's called
bribery, and is
illegal in all 57 states — excepting Illinois…
Oh, wait: You said "amounts to" — which means
only your motives are pure; everyone else's are -at least- suspect!
We have it now, at the state level as you know [referring to some states' initiative process, when I asked about "government by plebiscite"…].
So: You couldn't "Just Say No"? :) The SSM issue (like abortion, still! And -as you'd have it- the important question of "corporate personhood") are issues that
should be decided by The People™, as in Not The Politicians or The Judges!
By that I mean, politics.
We'd both prefer that the Bill of Rights trump any temporary majority opinion to the contrary, wouldn't we? :)
Those seem so self-evident that I don't understand why you're asking.
You know… Actual historical examples of democracies maintaining such, even for a generation!
But why trust the legislators any more? They had millions of dollars "donated" to them on the understanding they would act in accordance to the benefactors wishes. Even uncorrupted, they'll just tend to vote the party line and don't have any more understanding of economics or foreign affairs, etc than we do.
Speak for yourself! And I'll speak for
myself! But I don't buy into your "they just vote the party line" and they "don't have any more understanding" BS contention. (Are you talking about Democrats, Libertarians, and RINOs? :) ) As previously noted, your "understanding" and mine differ markedly! Why do you think that is?
I'd trust
your views on foreign affairs and matters economical as much as
mjm's (and less than
Jaybro's…); well, less, really: He (
mjm) has fewer pre-existing conditions… :)
You seem to think
politicians can author campaign finance reform in such wise as to obviate
pre-existing conditions… I'd maintain that only a concerted diminution of the sphere and power of government
might accomplish this! (The standard Tea Party line… :) ) Call it a form of
insurance the Founders bought us.
Constitutional Amendments should be few and far between. The issue of the day should not wind up in the constitution.
We can certainly agree on that (with some egregious exceptions…)!
The "Binding Precedent" is a fiction, more so in
your camp,
Sang… But as much in the breach.
What are ya gonna do? Eh? :)
Will you be saddened, if Harry Reid is demoted?
[glow=green,2,300]American Democracy has Spoken[/glow]
[glow=blue,2,300]Republicans in control of: [/glow]
[glow=black,2,300]The U.S. Senate[/glow]
[glow=black,2,300]
The U.S. House[/glow]
[glow=black,2,300]U.S. State Governorships[/glow]
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1GwWLWp.gif&hash=ee916fe934074f418e0d0e56c2a7b072" rel="cached" data-hash="ee916fe934074f418e0d0e56c2a7b072" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/1GwWLWp.gif)
[glow=red,2,300]Obama, is oh, so, so Lame[/glow]
Call it a form of insurance the Founders bought us.
I'm surprised some Catholic American Bishop hadn't proposed yet to Sanctify the Founders... each time I read about them there's another miracle. :angel:
Disestablishment at the federal level was written into our constitution, sir! :) But most of his contemporaries and many, still, consider Washington almost a saint… When you consider what that few generations (say, from James Otis and Sam Adams to James Monroe and John Quincy Adams) accomplished, the appellation of "miraculous" doesn't seem so far fetched; specially when you see the retrenchment that grows more poignant each election cycle….
(Your country has had bold and persistent leadership too. Or have you forgotten Salazar already?)
Our history is much shorter than yours; so, we choose our folk heroes from those we can almost remember! (Your governments are so fleeting -as in most of Europe- that you have to either be-knight even recent tyrants or bemoan the frailties of Man.
You're welcome to your King — and a fine and upstanding fellow he seemed! Is he still in "power"? You see -of course- that it doesn't matter to us, except aesthetically? Portugal doesn't much matter, on the world stage…
I anticipate the time when America doesn't much matter to anyone else.
* (A third of a continent ought to be enough for anybody, no? :) ) I hate to admit it, but Rodney King asked a pertinent question:
Can't we all just get along?Well, we're closer now to being able to than -I think- ever before…
(There are, of course, recalcitrants of various sorts… :) Would you like me to name names?)
———————————————————————————
* What happens if fusion becomes a commonplace source of electricity?
Sure, the U.S. is likely to pioneer it… But that won't matter: It will change the world! And -silly me!- I think, for the better.
There's no way to bottle-neck such technology, and I wouldn't want there to be. Everyone will adjust just fine to almost free energy, once it becomes available…
For some reason that I've never been able to understand, some folk insist that "everything's already been invented" and "there's nothing new, under the Sun!"
Of course, I cough! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsakoff%27s_syndrome) I've been smoking for fifty years!
The silliest and nonsensical
tropes are put forward by the most staid
and conservative of people! They fade
into the background, when they are called dull…
Are words best used as weapons or as tools?
(You likely know my preference and my bent;
I'd create and rejoice in the advent
of such a confabulation of fools!)
While it's true, that I don't ask others to
agree with me too much, I don't ask them
to oppose me unreasonably… A-hem!
(What wondrous fiction, I could write! And you
too could — if only there were no human
nature!) What does the Latin mean? Summin?
(I'm sorry but I find that funny; and I'm sorry if you don't! :) ) [source (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071130182049AAskBRf), for some of my silliness…]
I
hear words differently than most. I'm often wrong. But I amuse myself (and, perhaps, others…) You seem to prefer that a lost world be reclaimed; while others insist that a never before world exists, if only some "magical" formula is pronounced by enough of The People!
I'm happy enough with the people I meet. They're not so bad…
We'd both prefer that the Bill of Rights trump any temporary majority opinion to the contrary, wouldn't we?
Well certainly
But I don't buy into your "they just vote the party line" and they "don't have any more understanding" BS contention. (Are you talking about Democrats, Libertarians, and RINOs?
All of the above and add archconservatives. I've seen CSPAN back when I was bothered to have cable tv. It's hilarious. No matter what the issue is seem just about every Democrat votes one way and every Republican votes the other. Hrmm, politicians set a new record for party line voting :yes: (?) (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-sets-record-for-voting-along-party-lines-20140203)In theory, our leaders should be better educated and informed than your "average" man on the street. In reality, it seems they've should their intellect to their party and to whatever special interest and there's not much reason to trust them more than the collective voice of the people tempered by rule of constitutional law
Will you be saddened, if Harry Reid is demoted?
»
Nope, I'm not. The sad truth is that Nevadans didn't actually want Harry again, but Sharon Angle ran such a poor campaign there wasn't a way for him to lose. "Harry Reid got elected to the Senate. Your housing values dropped." Either she's an idiot herself, or thought the voters were. You know, those folks that watched their housing values go up until the 2008 recession, when almost the entire country's housing values dropped. I tried to tell you before, now the SSM is becoming a non-issue and is all but inevitable in all states and territories, I'm not as tied the Democrats. I was raised to be a Republican, but I broke with the party over that issue. The Republicans still practice and idiotic and over-simplified version of supply-side that pretty well can only result in increased deficits. But Democrats have the same problem with Keynesian economics. Despite what Fox and conservative pundits will tell it's not all tax and spend all the time. In fact, many Democrats are equally guilty of that ignorance. State Question 3
"State Question No. 3
Shall the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to create a 2% tax to be imposed on a margin of the gross revenue of entities doing business in Nevada whose total revenue for any taxable year exceeds $1 million, with the proceeds of the tax going to the State Distributive School Account to be apportioned among Nevada's school districts and charter schools?" Got defeated with almost 79% of the vote :yes: That issue had have been put forward by a Democrat that didn't know the real way to get more money for schools would be to grow the economy.
(Your country has had bold and persistent leadership too. Or have you forgotten Salazar already?)
I never forget what is important.
Portugal doesn't much matter, on the world stage…
I anticipate the time when America doesn't much matter to anyone else.* (A third of a continent ought to be enough for anybody, no? :) ) I hate to admit it, but Rodney King asked a pertinent question: Can't we all just get along?
Well, we're closer now to being able to than -I think- ever before…
Don't be naive, it doesn't suits you well... :)
You seem to prefer that a lost world be reclaimed; while others insist that a never before world exists, if only some "magical" formula is pronounced by enough of The People!
I'm happy enough with the people I meet. They're not so bad…
You're almost there. That's a feat for an American.
Thank you, I let you discuss between yourselves your problems.
State Question 3 got defeated with almost 79% of the vote :yes: That issue had been put forward by a Democrat that didn't know the real way to get more money for schools would be to grow the economy.
I'm impressed,
Sang! (The next step is to the realization that money isn't the most important determinant of good, successful schools… :) )
Have you any comment on your neighbor state's "open primary" system? Or on our recent "affirmative consent" law (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967)?
[And wouldn't you think some older person might have had the foresight to schedule the bill so that it received the number 976…? :) ]
——————————————————————————
I let you discuss between yourselves your problems
Have people in the Old World no interest the topic of free speech?
——————————————————————————
Back @
Sang: What do you make of this post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/06/sixth-circuit-on-the-rational-basis-for-opposite-sex-only-marriage-laws/)…?
Have people in the Old World no interest the topic of free speech?
We, people in the Old Word, are very different between ourselves.
First you learn that. :)
Since you address me directly, the answer is that free speech exists since ever amongst my race, so we don't bother discussing what everyone agrees.
But I have a natural curiosity, an anthropological curiosity should I say, about other place's natives, how they deal with those simple issues. As a Naturalist, I like to observe you with a magnifying glass.
Free speech seems to be a problem at North American cultures. Isn't it?
I remember you that I was the only one to post to this topic using a classic of American painting, so I suggest you to keep on provoking your "Democrat" co-citizens, not me. :)
Provocation? Oh, I see… Nothing in law has surpassed the quite sensible Code Duello! But isn't Portugal a member of the EU…? :)
Indeed, Old Worlders are a varied lot. As are Americans (U.S.-ers…) Still, there are legal and political demarcations, no?
I'll expect to hear from your second… (Unless you are prematurely imprisoned for some "hate speech" offense; in which case, I'll testify on your behalf — if you think it would help. :) )
Have you any comment on your neighbor state's "open primary" system? Or on our recent "affirmative consent" law (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967)?
[And wouldn't you think some older person might have had the foresight to schedule the bill so that it received the number 976…? :) ]
Haven't given them much thought. Open primaries are probably pretty much a wash as far a registered voter for one party deliberately choosing a bad candidate for the other, so I'm not sure it really changes the results. Affirmative Consent, huh? In that seems to be the possibility of both of them being drunk but she doesn't remember being as much a part of the "unwanted" sexual encounter as he was. It also can be judged on preponderance of evidence, so the judge and jury need only be 50.1% sure and they're likely to be biased to believe the female anyway.
I wish I knew what you all are talking about.
No I don't.
I wish I knew what you all are talking about.
No I don't.
Okay… (Glad I could help! :) )
@
Sang (and any others who decry the evil influence of the Koch brothers…): Consider this (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/195409-see-can-guess-political-megadonors-money-goes/).
(And, perhaps, re-consider my surmise — that some only rail against money's influence in politics when the money comes from people who disagree with them!)
Of course the money corrupts both sides. But that particular articles seems to be lying by omission.
How about Las Vegas's own Sheldon Adelson (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/03/casino-tycoon-sheldon-adelson-takes-100-million-gamble-on-gop-senate.html)?
Casino Tycoon Sheldon Adelson Takes $100 Million Gamble on GOP Senate
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson could put $100 million of his own cash in this year’s midterms. Can he buy the Senate of his dreams?
Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is poised to donate close to $100 million this election cycle, with much of that total coming in untraceable “dark money” to conservative groups—a massive amount that could help decide which party controls the Senate next year.
Several of the casino mogul’s largest checks, in the mid-seven to low-eight figure range, are being sent to a quartet of conservative nonprofits that under IRS rules can mask donors’ names, say three GOP operatives and donors familiar with his contributions. [/url] How weird. One Republican "giving" more than all the Democrats combined. What happened to the Koch's and their 44,000 ads? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/04/one-out-of-every-10-ads-run-in-the-2014-election-have-ties-to-the-koch-brothers/)
The article you presented exposes it's own error.
With a quick analysis of the donor lists, it is exceptionally easy to get the general picture of the types of political views supported by different super PACs.
Right, just looked at donor lists without digging any deeper. Typical conservatives. In this half-hearted answer to your post, in five minutes I've uncovered more than the article's author. But why did I say he was lying by omission? Because it's not possible that he's this poor of a journalist.
At least it lets us segue into dark money. What are your thoughts on that?
Not too long ago a certain procyonid was dancing to the demise of the Republican Party. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/nono.gif)
Michael Corleone once said, "Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In!"
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/nono007.gif)
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/VIDEO]
Well, Carol Ann ................................ [glow=blue,2,300]They're back!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif) [/glow]
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH-B6A04iK0[/VIDEO]
Insert your favorite Yogi-ism here..........
Straight from the loony bin (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/paranoia-rama-obamas-murderous-endgame-new-george-soros-conspiracy-theory-and-beware-sodomit#sthash.YPmUia4q.dpuf):
1) Sodomite Semen In Your Starbucks!
We knew anti-gay activists were no fans of Starbucks, but Harlem pastor James David Manning took their concerns to a whole new level in recent commentary on “The Manning Report.”
He managed to link a recent small protest outside of his church, where two people handed out Starbucks coffee, to “homosexual sodomite” Dr. Craig Spencer, the New York man who contracted Ebola in Guinea (and who has a girlfriend).
“Starbucks is a place where these types frequent and a lot of body fluids are exchanged there and Ebola,” Manning said, warning that Starbucks has been “taking specimens of male semen and they were putting it in the blends of their lattes.” He added: “My suspicion is that they’re getting their semen from sodomites. Somebody has discovered that semen like cord blood has millions of little zygotes in it and flavors up the coffee, and makes you thinks you’re having a good time.”
“This is the absolute truth,” he said, citing a satirical article (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/starbucks.asp).
And these people all vote :faint: :ko: :rip:
Not to mention the one where Obama will supersede Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot as a mass murderer. (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/end-times-radio-host-obama-will-kill-more-mao-stalin-and-pol-pot) Yes, Oakdale, I saw the word "potential" in the original question :rolleyes: .How can a sane person even listen to this (it was on the radio)? For the comedy? Free speech is alive and well in this country when people can say this and not get hauled off to the asylum. The problem is that if you actually believe this, you probably do need hospitalization for mental disorders.
What do you mean Right Wing Watch is not a comedy site?! :eyes: :insane:
Nope. I understand the confusion, since some of the could have come the Onion. But that's really how some of them think. They seem to have forgotten the difference between criticizing a president's policies and being a lunatic.
@
Mac: Of course Louis Farrakhan (or Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright...) have never said anything goofy! :) People for the American Way is a particularly inaptly named organization!
And on the
radio! Stop the presses! Call out the National Guard! Give the DoJ more money, so they can stop people from saying stupid things -- that is, when the IRS fails...
"Dark money"! That sure sounds spooky,
Sang... Tell me all about this conspiracy theory of yours. Inquiring minds want to know! :)
How about Las Vegas's own Sheldon Adelson (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/03/casino-tycoon-sheldon-adelson-takes-100-million-gamble-on-gop-senate.html)?
You mean no. 6 on the list of the top ten (in the article I linked to)? But I did like the way the article you quoted and linked to kept saying "could" and you kept reading "did"! (It shows a certain mind-set.)
If you go far enough to either right or left extreme, you'll find an abundance of crazy.
Hmmm... Starbucks coffee, eh? And here I thought I just despised the taste of the stuff. Overpriced, tastes like it was burned, have to have strange flavors in it just to make it tolerable-- how about "No"?
Nope. I understand the confusion, since some of the could have come the Onion.
A lot of it would be too over the top for The Onion :right:
In other words, Poe's Law.
You mean no. 6 on the list of the top ten (in the article I linked to)? But I did like the way the article you quoted and linked to kept saying "could" and you kept reading "did"! (It shows a certain mind-set.)
Trying to take a cheap shot instead of dealing with the issue, are we? Oh no, my article said it "dark-money groups could prove instrumental in helping the GOP pick up the six Senate seats it will need to take control of the chamber." Oh dear, that must mean the whole article us speculation to you, the resident master of cheap shots. No the article isn't all speculation, and yes Adelson gave 20X more than the article you offered claimed he did, but tried to hide it in dark money.
If you go far enough to either right or left extreme, you'll find an abundance of crazy
But the crazy scale seems to show heaviness of the right side.
If you go far enough to either right or left extreme, you'll find an abundance of crazy
But the crazy scale seems to show heaviness of the right side.
The extreme, lunatic right is pretty much mainstream now.
@
Mac and
Sang: I take it, you didn't like the election results?! :)
Yet another article about super PACs and "dark" money can be found here… (Never mind the link: Real-life obligations intervened; and, in the meantime, my browser or this site "ate" my post…twice! Okay, the browser saved the page: here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/super-pac-contributors-2014_n_6063516.html). [
AndBut] I've seen no evidence that you can read and understand anything that isn't "pre-approved". (Hint: You could try reading the
Citizens United decision that so aggravates you (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html)!
*)
"dark-money groups could prove instrumental in helping the GOP pick up the six Senate seats it will need to take control of the chamber."
What type of statutory construction depends upon a phrase like "could prove instrumental in helping"? (I mean, other than
they're a-gin' me, and therefore must be stopped!)I honestly don't know what your idea of the 1st Amendment right to free speech is,
Sang. And I doubt you do…
(
Macallan, you're a spectator — I think, by nature! But if your only contribution is to say how smart you are you've accomplished that… You've said how smart you think you are.
Feel free to hug yourself!
Did I mention the recent election results? :) (Of course, you think they're the result of mind-control or moneyed interests' "unfair" advantages… But what you actually mean is: Your side lost, because most people who cared about the result thought they should — and, so, voted that way.
The extreme, lunatic right Left is pretty much [no longer] mainstream now.
Fixed that for you! :) (Will you be returning to Germany, now that our southerners have so disappointed you…? Perhaps you can help re-build the Berlin Wall! I, for one, wonder what great things await you — once your genius is recognized!)
———————————————————————————* You might want to pay especial attention to the sections discussing Supreme Court precedent regarding the "personhood" trope you rely on… :)
It seems to me that the American Government as a whole is dysfunctional in that it sets up conflicts in policy between the will of the people expressed in the two houses and the President.
We have some of that in Europe where the European elections have a different time-scale to the national elections and as a result the political views expressed by national delegations in the European Parliament do not necessarily reflect the political views in the countries they represent, as expressed in the national elections.
In the UK there was an ill fated attempt (thank goodness it did fail because it was a proposal shot through with silliness) to democratise the House into elected politicians serving terms of 12 years. Had it passed it would have set up potential out-of-phase political conflicts. I supposes similar dis-function applies in other countries.
Surely all this is just a way of Governments shooting themselves in the foot.
Yes - I've heard all the BS about "Separation of the Powers" and all that, but if something dos not work well it should be changed, not hidden behind legislation which advantaged political parties claim is Holy writ..
The extreme, lunatic right Left is pretty much [no longer] mainstream now.
Fixed that for you! :) (Will you be returning to Germany, now that our southerners have so disappointed you…? Perhaps you can help re-build the Berlin Wall! I, for one, wonder what great things await you — once your genius is recognized!)
Whatever it is you're smoking, it clearly doesn't do you any good :faint:
Mac, you keep returning to Right Wing Watch… You are a "type". If that bothers you, stop being silly.
———————————————————————————————————
@string: The American "style" of government is not -I repeat, is not!- designed to accommodate the functionaries or ease (grease? :) ) the Big Wheels' track…
The topic here is our American 1st Amendment right to free speech, and the various assaults on it. Sang (and President Obama) rightly argue that that right is too often inconvenient — for somebody.
In your post you mention a "reform" that your nation averted… (I don't follow British politics. I don't understand enough to speak reasonably about it; and I think it's -mostly- none of my business.) But I'd agree -although you didn't quite put it this way- that making the choice of one's representatives a twice in a generation proposition subverts democracy, and minimizes the import of free speech…
Twelve year terms?! Good Lord, what was the rationale for that?
If I recall correctly, your election laws constrain "electioneering" to a few months — so that newspapers and the Telly won't be forced to neglect the important things! But it's only a small step from there to "vote once" democracy, isn't it? :)
Have you opinions about either the technicalities of Citizens United (the U.S. Supreme Court decision…) or free speech in general?
It seems to me that the American Government as a whole is dysfunctional in that it sets up conflicts in policy between the will of the people expressed in the two houses and the President.
It may seem dysfunctional to you, but read more about it --- it may become clearer. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/A%20OK%20002.gif)
It's what we Americans call [glow=blue,2,300]
"Checks & Balances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_and_balances)" [/glow]
In theory, through [glow=blue,2,300]
Checks & Balances, [/glow] no one branch of government can reign supreme over another branch.
In the long run [glow=blue,2,300]
Checks & Balances, [/glow] should further ensure that in order to legislate effectively, legislative cooperation between parties & the branches, is the only way to proceed & pass new legislation.
Well virtually the only way.
There are
'legitimate' Constitutional ways to override objections between branches, but whatever is being suggested in the new legislation needs to be extremely popular (amongst the legislators & the people -
super-majorities in the legislative branch to override a veto by the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States), &
Constitutional Amendments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#United_States)to override the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings).
The President has only veto power to ward off legislation he dislikes, & usually must sign any legislation before it becomes law (both can be overcome though - Constitutionally)
There have been
2562 Presidential vetoes, & Congress has only overridden (http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm) a President
110 times.
As far as conflicts between the will of the people & the President you allude to. If America was a Democracy, I would agree, but I must remind you.....America was not founded as a Democracy, & will never be a Democracy (in pure terms anyway).
America is a Constitutional Republic -- In simple terms, a government based on certain basic democratic principals, but under the supreme rule & guidance of a Constitution.
I hope that helps make how
our government (
our Constitutional Republic) is
intended to function, a tad clearer for you.
Sang (and President Obama) rightly argue that that right is too often inconvenient — for somebody.
I don't argue about convenience. I argue that big money in politics corrupted the system and it's getting worse. Are you really so shortsighted that you think this about the last election?
Speaking of crazy, Scott Lively the American "pastor" that played a role in Uganda's "Death to Gays" bill now accuses the HRC (http://www.hrc.org/) of "target(ing) him for murder." What's even crazier, this is spreading in the rightwing blogoshere. :faint: Some articles seemed to tone down the insanity that he actually said to make it sound plausible. Lively's problem is that he seems to obsessed with gays. Merely being against equal marriage obviously doesn't mean one it gay himself. However, when one makes a whole career obsessed with gay people and even goes before the Ugandan parliament to preach against them , it fair to wonder why. His insanity and obsession about gay people is only slightly more crazy than thinking I've against free speech because I disagree that righting a fat check to agency that conceals the identity of its donors is free speech. What I've written and published would have gotten me arrested in days not so long past and I'm supposedly against free speech and think people should be sent the to Gulag for disagreeing with me. Please.
I had to use Wiki to find out who Lively is… Perhaps I should let the crazies fight it out among themselves!
big money in politics corrupted the system and it's getting worse.
You haven't yet argued anything. But you do keep repeating ominous warnings!
Have you bothered to read
Citizens United? As I've mentioned before, it includes a history lesson you might have missed during you formal schooling…
I think we should vote now.
Sanguinemoon and Oakdale had all the time of this world to present their arguments.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the decision of the Portuguese Jury:
Sanguinemoon - 0,75
Oakdale - 0,50
The voting scale goes from 0 to 20.
Finally America has Democracy. :)
Since the Citizens United decision is both assumed to be the cause of the current "travesty of democracy" and the creator of the especial target of "corporate persons" deemed to be the bane of fair elections and true democracy — Well, one would think those who say such would have some familiarity with it.
But that, it seems, is too much to ask.
We can forgive our Portuguese correspondents for their various confusions. But we find little to recommend leniency towards our Nevadans. :)
——————————————————————————
Would anyone here really want me to post the pertinent sections of that Supreme Court decision? (At least twice, I've posted the link to it — in pdf and html formats because Sang doesn't like pdfs….)
I'll do it, if asked. Still, anyone who is actually interested but hasn't read the actual decision is fooling themselves: They're like the folks to whom the "horse race" aspect of elections is what matters…
If anyone wishes to alter the Constitution to change the meaning of the Freedom of Speech, or limit campaign contributions to suit, then why not submit Constitutional Amendments to do just that, pass them, get the States to agree, & then it's history.
A walk in the park, that is if their actions can ever surpass their words......the empty words of the whingers, who haven't the intestinal fortitude of subjecting themselves to the process of actually acting upon which they continuously whinge about.
PS ...... Our European & World participants must be dying in the ass that we can't just hold a referendum & make a law depending solely upon the vote/will of the majority. That's their type of democracy, which the United States does not now, nor probably ever will, subscribe to. For over 225 years as a [glow=blue,2,300]Constitutional Republic [/glow] we have been subject to adhering to our type of democracy which is subject to the United States Constitution ........ something they (the foreigners) can never change, & we seldom ever do (even though it's within our power to Constitutionally do so).
i think democracy is just an ideal concept , or something like Principle . :monkey:
IMHO , there is no democracy at all in this world .. there is only Democratic Principles .
also , there is no Such Freedom of Speech .
there is only freedom of speech Principles .
........IMHO,........there is no Such Freedom of Speech . there is only freedom of speech Principles .
I respect your opinion, & I also respectfully disagree. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)
Can you give some examples that form your honest opinion, or why you feel that way?
trolling , cyberbullying , hate speechs, etc .. can make someone banned from some sites .
if in real world , the worst case is jailed .
freedom of speech that do not follow Freedom of speech principles = criminalities .
Since the Citizens United decision is both assumed to be the cause of the current "travesty of democracy"
It's a symptom, but not the disease itself. The task now is to demonstrate that dark money schemes, corporate entities, are not "we the people." Oakdale, you're thinking narrowly and I'm thinking broadly again.
Oakdale, you're thinking narrowly and I'm thinking broadly again.
I'm thinking that "the people" refers to all individuals and their various assemblages... And the Supreme Court has consistently agreed.
To date, all various campaign finance reforms -including the 17th Amendment, open primary schemes and term limits- have amounted to little more than incumbency protection, the promulgation of an entrenched political class. Yet you insist that giving such the power to constrain political speech will -somehow, this time- result in an appreciable lessening of corruption? :)
I would think that giving incumbents more power to remain incumbents would increase corruption rather than decrease it. Less to fear because opposition candidates wouldn't have the power to unseat them, therefore guaranteeing the incumbent keeps his/her seat warm for the next term. But, that's only my observation from watching office-holders who have been in ever since the Dawn of Man, building up ever more power, and becoming more corrupt in the process.
Even if that's true, in time the incumbents will be gone. Let the same jackass be re-elected, if it means less corruption in the system long term. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet. But the reform would mean the incumbent would be able to take less money as well, so there is the potential of leveling the financial playing field between the incumbent and the challenger and neither would have as much incentive to disregard the concerns they represent to the benefit of their corporate benefactors. You guys see, it's not about who wins as much the victor being accountable to the people instead of "social welfare" organizations.
If I'm wrong, we might be watching how a republic/democracy dies. The elections become shams, sold the highest bidder.
The elections become shams, sold the highest bidder.
We're well past that point, now that those who have it can throw as much money as they want at elections, with candidates still depending on large donations. Elections in the US are little more than ritualized bribery.
Elections in the US are little more than ritualized bribery.
Where do you come from,
Mac, where things are better? :) (And why -I'd ask- aren't you still there?)
mjm, you made the crucial point: "I would think that giving incumbents more power to remain incumbents would increase corruption rather than decrease it."
Sang's counter-point, "Even if that's true, in time the incumbents will be gone. Let the same jackass be re-elected, if it means less corruption in the system long term. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet."
How does letting "the same jackass be re-elected" result in less corruption in the long term?
Sang, both your bitter and your sweet appall me… (Unless, of course, I've misunderstood what you've written; or you've written other than what you've meant. Or you're just a gay-activist, who knows nor cares nothing about anything else; but you like the liberal -"progressive"- line about "human rights"…and are willing to jettison ancient rights to get what little silliness you want, in return.)
Free speech leaves to the people the power to determine what is true, what is appropriate, and what is deserving of their attention.
Some people don't like that! (They'd rather their cohorts and benefactors be the ones to decide who can say what when…) They keep trying to get control over such. I'd say: Note well who those people are, and what they want that they can't get, otherwise.
And ask yourself why…
How does letting "the same jackass be re-elected" result in less corruption in the long term?
Next time don't, script like, read for a few keywords. Read for understanding. Both candidates can receive less money from corporate interests. If the corrupt incumbent still wins next time that's fine because eventually he/she will retire or die in office. Then we'll have fresh candidates, neither of which will receive insane amounts of money to, say oppose Net Neutrality.
This brings us to a real free speech issue. Ted Cruz seems to think it's a new Obama program and called it "Obamacare for the internet", despite it being the default and how the internet has always been. Republicans tend to agree with him. A person with a small ISP has just as much right to receive content as someone whose ISP could afford extra bandwidth. How much did our congresspeople who oppose Net Neutrality get from the telecoms? Get it? These folks don't give a flying fuck about free speech. They only care about their where their next campaign dollar is coming from.
Both candidates can receive less money from corporate interests. If the corrupt incumbent still wins next time that's fine because eventually he/she will retire or die in office.
The contributions to candidates are still, by law, limited… So that's not the "problem" you want solved.
Then we'll have fresh candidates, neither of which will receive insane amounts of money to, say oppose Net Neutrality.
What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!
I especially like the way you deem anyone holding opposing views as venal and corrupt. But that's the lowest form of political debate. Get it? :)
But, not to worry,
Sang: Most people don't pay much attention to over-the-top rhetoric…
Having met several ex-colonists over the years I try to remain hopeful that one day a democracy will come into place but according to the recent voting percentage so may have either got tired waiting or see it as pointless. Shame. Doesn't really make much difference if a Head of State is from either party they are much of the same just one a little less of a mess than the other. Both are imperialistic and military daft.
I try to remain hopeful that one day a democracy will come into place [in the U.S.]
That seems to me a typical illustration of "misery loves company"…to be followed, of course, by
Schadenfreude! :)
May your devolution continue apace.
—————————————————————————
@
Sang: Two links on
Net Neutrality you should already have seen are this (http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-federal-regulation-internet-terrible-idea) and this (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462)…
What worries me about your approach —to almost any "problem"— seems to be
enlightened federal regulation! By your own admission, we're always going to be a generation or so behind the curve, no? And
your enlightenment may be another's "dark age"… :)
But, no worries: The
bad legislators, elected executives and their bureaucrats will "soon die and be replaced"! You're not just naive, are you!?
I especially like the way you deem anyone holding opposing views as venal and corrupt. But that's the lowest form of political debate. Get it?
Why is that all the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet got contributions from the telecoms?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--17t25gv8--%2Fc_fit%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_636%2Fju0dhmfzf46mik6f4hwx.png&hash=84cdb661143fa0dd3e864fd5ac885316" rel="cached" data-hash="84cdb661143fa0dd3e864fd5ac885316" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--17t25gv8--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ju0dhmfzf46mik6f4hwx.png)
Also the members the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
[img] http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--p6bUGN-s--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/e79kty1b6ngwxikf92tu.png [/url]
That doesn't even count the money given through PACs and SuperPACs
What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!
What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.
What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.
:) Your go-to explanation…
Try this:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--p6bUGN-s--%2Fc_fit%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_636%2Fe79kty1b6ngwxikf92tu.png&hash=c635fa8c77da0f870ab28a131a693fa5" rel="cached" data-hash="c635fa8c77da0f870ab28a131a693fa5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--p6bUGN-s--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/e79kty1b6ngwxikf92tu.png)
And…what conclusion(s) do you draw from these figures? Perhaps that these companies listed are quite interested in the issue?
And…what conclusion(s) do you draw from these figures? Perhaps that these companies listed are quite interested in the issue?
Those senators and representatives got their money, and now net neutrality is on its way to being history. I'm so glad you want everybody's bills to increase just to maintain the same level of service. It's even better that you claim to believe in freespeech, but are in favor of allowing the telecoms to throttle traffic of people who didn't violate some TOS. It's so awesome this can even turn political "X is against me on this issue, so they get less bandwidth than Y." How is even possible to be against net neutrality and still claim to be a free speech advocates? What's really at stake is freedom of information on the internet. Again, "I oppose so and so's point of view, so I'll give my side much more bandwidth so the other side can barely get access." People like Ted Cruz like to talk about "internet fast lanes." I guarantee that will also mean internet bicycle paths. Somebody like you will say "Where did Cruz say that?" He doesn't have to. Stop typing that primitive attack about how I can read his mind, or liberals make up what people say or whatever else idiocy you had in mind - the answer is technical. The content providers have a finite amount of bandwidth, so they give X telecom extra. That means Y gets throttled, especially during high load periods. That's even baring any political motivates mentioned above. Or Concast, the owner of NBC could slow down traffic to CBS, ABC, and Fox. Won't that be a lovely situation? ISP's all but forcing customers to only visit approved websites? In that case, we might as well go back to AOL and other walled gardens.
Oh regarding the articles, the Review Journal one forgot to mention that content providers such as Netflix are in favor of net neutrality - even though they're the ones that will get to charge ISPs for extra bandwidth. Why? Because loss of neutrality will mean poorer service. Hence them joining the "Internet Slowdown" protesy
Those senators and representatives got their money, and now net neutrality is on its way to being history.
Oh? It's that simple?!
As always, your economic model is "command and control" -- Do we
really want something like the old AT&T monopoly? Or will it suffice to have the FCC treat ISPs like common carriers? (Yes, Congress would have to do that... And the courts will weigh in.) Your list of "horribles" is even less likely.
Can I join the "protesy"? Or is it only open like-minded people? Keep in mind what we know about regulatory capture! Not to mention unintended consequences.
My dear Oakdale old chap your country is not a proper democracy as you have previously hinted at. Being a Republic does not automatically mean democracy and you well prove that one!
Can I join the "protesy"? Or is it only open like-minded people?
You have no answer to the arguments, so you resort to attacking along the typo. Pathetic. I told you that script-like, you'd scan for weak point with out actually reading for understanding. Damn, I'm a freakin' psychic.
This has nothing to do with the breakup of AT&T. This is restoring the internet to its default state, which is neutrality. You're also missing the point completely. This isn't an argument about net neutrality at all, but one about free speech. What an age we live in. Bribery is free speech, throttling the bandwidth of dissenting voices isn't an affront to it.
Being a Republic does not automatically mean democracy and you well prove that one!
Republicans don't even know what democracy is, Howie. They seem to think it's mob rule, ignoring that we learned there's also rule of law and constitutional rights in the intervening couple centuries.
You have no answer to the arguments
Er,
what arguments…?
I'm sure you think some sort of government regulation would get you a better deal; but I think you're wrong. (Unless you secure some "privileged class" special deal…) This is fairly new technology that -at present- requires enormous expense up-front. There are a few radically different proposals to deal with that…
(Municipal broadband, either in partnership or solo, is one. There's no reason I can think of against it. Can you think of any?
Hint: I think you should notice the necessary tax burden — something you've consistently avoided, in other contexts.
I think I understand why: You like "free" stuff, and you want what you want!)
You could read Epstein's
Hoover Institute piece (http://www.hoover.org/research/hands-web) "Hands Off The Web"… But you won't like it. You seem to want
political hands on the Web; which is odd, considering how much you think they're all crooks, liars and Republicans!
Please tell me again (…because I must have missed it): What
exactly is the problem you think needs fixing?
—————————————————————————————————
Republicans don't even know what democracy is, Howie. They seem to think it's mob rule, ignoring that we learned there's also rule of law and constitutional rights in the intervening couple centuries.
I'll certainly let you and
Howie hash this out, peer to peer: Intellectually, you two are brothers!
But you,
Sang, might want to review your understanding of Western History: The rule of law and primacy of individual rights
pre-ceded
democracy.
BTW: You might want to ask
RJ what he'd have done, had the recent vote on "independence" gone the other way! Migrate south? Register as a resident alien? Or join the underground resistance? :)
not sure if my psyche is getting really tired saw Oak Vs Sang arguments in many threads .
or i just cant stop my Pscyhe to not think , the whole of their Arguments are just false analogy and appeal to emotion .
What you must mean is that interests that conflict with those you have must be curtailed or silenced — because, of course, you're view is right; so, others must be wrong!
What you must mean is that you're drunk or drugs.
Possibly, but mostly weapon grade projection.
(Unless you secure some "privileged class" special deal…) This is
Don't get it? Getting rid of net neutrality is what will create special classes. Net Neutrality has been the default from the beginning, and now it's ever so sinister. Having different hosts artificially constrained by the telecoms will slow down the entire internet, hence the "Internet Slowdown" protest. This is just the nature of the network. This will include those in the "internet fast lanes." You can argue that through improvements in technology, the internet will not actually get slower - if you actually presented something to counter my arguments. That might be true, however the network will still not operate at optimum bandwidth, ie it will be slower than it should be. With less than optimal capacity, the internet in the US will not be able to support, or will poorly support future web technologies, ie faster and improved methods of video streaming, true web applications (not simply links to sites that can do just one simple thing, as many or most of them are now.) This in part political argument, part technological. This covers the technological in the simplest of terms possible.
The political argument, again is free speech. The internet will be the primary tool of exercising the First Amendment rights in the future. Indeed, you can say that is already. If you can assign additional bandwidth to favored hosts, you can reduce it for hosta whose content is "controversial" (including conservative to rightwing ones. But it gets worst. The government has already demanded user info from service providers such as Verizon. Now the government will have the tools to have dissenting voices bandwidth throttled. Dynamic IP addresses, you might say. Tracking the change from one IP to another is trivial. Think most, if not all VPNs can't be tracked and cracked. Think this is Katsungian? I can see that, but within the loss of treating all internet traffic equally is the potential for tyranny. (for the sake of a reminder, net neutrality is not an Obama thing, but how the internet has been since day one. )
Possibly, but mostly weapon grade projection
Quite so. He can't make it through a single post without a personal attack on me.
You could read Epstein's Hoover Institute piece (http://www.hoover.org/research/hands-web) "Hands Off The Web"… But you won't like it.
Not for the reasons you think. It seems to confuse the various prices plans offered by the ISPs with lose of network neutrality. I have a decent plan with a major ISP (10 Mbps down with C+e will likely remain the same. Nor does it address that for technical reasons, the content providers (including the most bandwidth heavy one - Netflix) oppose lose of network neutrality, despite the fact they stand to gain monetarily by charging the cable companies extra for the bandwidth they use from their servers.
The article on the site named after the president who's economic policies were the greatest failing in US economic history says this silliness "Preemptive rate regulation will not do anything other than retard the huge expansion of the Internet that has taken place under current legal regimes" despite the arguments that current startups, including Facebook likely could not have occurred with network neutrality? FB is easy to deride, all the pages asking you to "like" them, numerous videos of idiots doing idiotic things, etc. But such startups have also grown into major means of exercising First Amendment rights, which is what this thread ostensibly is about. Further at the time of the AT&T breakup, it was a near monopoly (with a couple smaller competitors, MCI and Sprint that weren't much of a threat.) In fact, the destruction of the original AT&T opened the door for greater innovation by it's successor companies. Yes, AT&T put itself back together but now with innovations that wouldn't have happened under the old monopoly. Lest you forget, monopolies tend not innovate.
Lose of net neutrality means that the ISPs could throttle traffic to apps and sites that are not their own, and direct users to their own content by force and thus dissenting opinions are given inadequate bandwidth, despite the user paying for a fast plan. In the days of AOL, a common compliment was busy signals while attempting to access the network (which were in part a function of the limited, dial-up technology at the time. ) Now we'll can have a "busy signal" when attempting to access, or even create content on sites and apps not controlled by the ISP or it's allies. As I've said before, it doesn't even have to be deliberate given that bandwidth is a finite resource. Therefore, it's intellectually incoherent to claim to a supporter of freedom of speech and expression, which not supporting net neutrality.
Well now Sanguinemoon being an average Joe you won't know much about what is supposed to be democracy and ther light for the world.
A Democrat machine was out in front with corporate money ast the last Preseidential circus that passes for an election sustem. It was a Demcrat regime that brought out more drones and killing people than the previous man GW Bush. Bush for all his faults actually had corporate money fraudsters charged - how many did the Democrat President do? None.It actually doesn't matter a hoot who is in the White House the imperialism continues with all those hundreds of military bases, get involved in wars to boost the copers of the armament industry. City police forces increasingly like the army (you are slowly heading for a police state). Heavens even have soldiers out on city streets! Towns going bankrupt including the big city of Detroit with large numbers of people switched off from water. I watched the city fire brigade in a documentary and the the city has more fires than anywhere in the country and the firemen haaen't had a raise for a long time. Even have to deal with dud gear! Imagine a massive bankrupt city in a modern country tens of millions of poor. And to crown it all the turnout at the national election was pathetic so that tells you the undercurrent amgst so many people who see it pointless to bother voting. It is a cosy system for the scores of millionaires on the Hill and any idea of for the people went a long time ago.
Vote for outwith the Republicans and Democrats? No chance as those two have sewn the system up. The very practical internal history internally contradicts the principle of democracy. Saying it is a basic capitalist society is now wrong as Wall Street now gets away with just about anything like jailing the money stealers I mentioned nor their misuse of the capitalist basis.
The traditional gap between the top and the bottom will of course always be there but the gap is now a massive chasm as the ordinary citizen struggles with no such success. Sneer all you like but my facts are there and what you need to do is get out and look and will realise you and the people are being dreadfully conned.
the site named after the president who's economic policies were the greatest failing in US economic history
You're a child of your age,
Sang; and you believe all the ideological
spin you were spoon-fed. Such pap -as history- is only fit for anemic "soldiers"… cannon fodder for the
progressives. (I'll italicize the term — for a while: You can re-claim
liberal -from me- when you show substantial liberal tendencies.) The policies of the first FDR administration were those of the Hoover administration… Whatever good came from them redounds to him.
But history is not your
forte.
Let's return to something else which is not your forte: Economics.
Net Neutrality is a scheme to spread scarce resources in such a way as to make everyone unhappy — socialism, applied to the Net. Re-distribute bandwidth according to demand…as determined by bureaucrats.
Google, Yahoo, Netflix and others know their demands upon the
pipes are excessive. They'd rather not pay a premium for access; but they also don't want to provide such access themselves. (There are signs that they can and would, given politically sanctioned and partially-funded agreements with local governments… I'm not opposed to such "partnerships" — unless they are both exclusive and discriminatory: Others should not be precluded from offering similar services. (You know: That ol'
monopoly thing-ie.) But they (almost everyone in the game…) has gone far towards doing just that.
Why? you might ask. Because stuff costs money, one way or another.
It's not a new concept!
Your idea of free speech seems to demand that the New York Times and Playboy both publish my words. That Barnes & Noble and Amazon give my books prime placing. That ABC, CBS and NBC offer
me time to respond to any opinion I disagree with… (We tried that for a while: It was most inappropriately called the "Fairness Doctrine".) In short, you don't want a marketplace of ideas; you want a fairy-tale world where competition is forbidden…
Only government can provide that,
Sang. And what necessarily comes with such power is — precisely the evils you say you fear!
—————————————————————————————
I think you should revisit the D.C. Ciruit's decision (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462)… It made a lot of sense, for the real world. (Not so much, for the paranoids among us, however: You can't have everything! :) )
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3Rr7C8M.gif&hash=7a2807b32ca311156544173617b8802c" rel="cached" data-hash="7a2807b32ca311156544173617b8802c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/3Rr7C8M.gif)
[glow=blue,2,300]"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary,
in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,
and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective,
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." [/glow]
Today, we have witnessed Congress & the Constitution made virtually irrelevant in short order,
by a man who would be King.
???
No, Smiley… Nor does what Madison wrote in No. 47 apply.
We have a president who would do what he wants. We have a congress that would avoid responsibility. And, bizarrely. we also have a president who would avoid responsibility… He'll not likely follow John Quincy's example, eh? :)
I assume you mean Obama's "sort-a amnesty". We've seen an act of desperation (…or compassion, depending on your view of sovereignty). But previous acts by the current administration are more egregious — and congress did nothing.
Don't think that the Supreme Court will interpose itself in what is, after all, a fight between the political branches. That's not their job. (And I -too- wouldn't want it to be.) Perhaps come January things will look different!
There's a reason, why the current immigration laws seem in-adequate: They have been haphazardly enforced, if at all.
(A side-note: I think most Hispanics emigrating to the U.S. —Cubans excepted, but not necessarily— want to re-create their failed societies here! The fellow sitting atop the crow's nest doesn't fear the sinking of the ship so much…! :) Seriously, I think their agreeableness with corruption means they're generations away from becoming "Americans". That phrase used to mean something: Becoming Americans. Since at least one party representing half of the electorate agrees, what are we to do? Obviously, no one yet knows.)
Are we a rich enough nation, that we can take in all comers? I don't think so. If everyone who wanted to came to the U.S. -excepting, of course, Howie- we'd tip into our oceans! Eventually, we'd all drown.
(A democratic congress-critter asked a military general officer if our presence on Guam posed that problem… :) He replied: "Ah — we haven't considered that possibility, sir.") But —
What has all this to do with the perennial attempts to proscribe and limit or repeal the !st Amendment right to free speech?
Of course, before you can proscribe the speech of your "opponents" you need to elect your cohorts… Call it campaign finance reform, if you like; it's always been an incumbent protection scheme.
I'd say the ball's in your court… But an ace is what it is!
Your serve…
I think we're gonna have to see if Congress and SCOTUS will combine to reign in Obama's tendency to rule by executive order. When one man gets it into his head that he, and he alone can make law-- we have a problem.
Now for a little perspective on executive orders.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-apps%2Fimrs.php%3Fsrc%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F06%2Fexecutive-orders_logo2-2.png%26amp%3Bw%3D1484&hash=6fd916e86dc355bf20ff115cd55e33f9" rel="cached" data-hash="6fd916e86dc355bf20ff115cd55e33f9" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/06/executive-orders_logo2-2.png&w=1484)
It takes 30 seconds to find out that Obama is not ruling by executive order. But everytime he does issue one, the GOP wants to pretend that he's "king" or a dictator, despite the fact that their boys have a tendency to issue more than Democrats and Obama issues fewer than any president since Grover Cleveland.
It takes 30 seconds to find out that Obama is not ruling by executive order.
If you don't know what
executive orders are, you can believe that... :)
Had you meant the accurate "He's illegally abrogating or re-writing statutes" I'd agree. Calling such "executive orders" is more than a stretch!
You could just as easy put a Republican President in that King like cartoon so doesn't make a damn difference which party. Your first office has too many powers.
It takes 30 seconds to find out that Obama is not ruling by executive order. But everytime he does issue one, the GOP wants to pretend that he's "king" or a dictator, despite the fact that their boys have a tendency to issue more than Democrats and Obama issues fewer than any president since Grover Cleveland.
Yeah, but none of the other guys did it while being black, so they don't count :right:
Yeah, but none of the other guys did it while being black, so they don't count
True enough. For whatever reason they GOP has lost it's collective mind about the president, but see below for another likely explanation.
You could just as easy put a Republican President in that King like cartoon so doesn't make a damn difference which party.
It makes a difference for the sake of perspective, owing the insanity the GOP's insanity over this president. The reason for this particular executive order is simple. The Senate passed immigration reform, the House sat on the legislation for over 500 days and lacked the bollocks to vote "yes" or "no." So Obama stepped in. This congress is useless. What are the taxpayers paying them for? To hide behind the capital building and drink beer all day, probably Coors Light at that? Maybe they drink Hurricane, (http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/29/2186/)which explains their collective lack of cognitive ability, insanity, and amnesia of anything that happened prior to 2008 (including what their own party did.) Bad beer will do it everytime.
Nobody issued fewer executive orders than William Henry Harrison. Of course, the fact that he died 30 days after his inauguration may have had something to do with that. (He died of flu, which he caught while giving his inauguration speech in a downpour.)
That's nice. It's not even the sheer number of executive orders, but the rate that they're issued to compensate for the two years Obama has left in office. Scroll back up to the chart that shows the rate per day. Obama is not issuing an unusual amount of executive orders by an stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's astounding people still believe claims like that in age when such information is so readily available is astounding. Maybe when loss of net neutrality is complete, a GOP leaning ISP can throttle bandwidth to sites that supply such objective information (which is what that fight is about, Oakdale - not if Comcast or some other ISP makes a special deal with Netflix :p )
Of course, from your point of view, what the executive orders involved and what their legality might be — well, that's beside the point!
Only the political import and impact matter, to you… (Am I wrong? Please explain, if so.) You like "pretty" charts and prefer not to deal with actual data; you're ill-ness requires spin-doctors — a constant, persistent and perpetual rehab.
But you will not recover. You're hooked, and you want to go as far as you can without having to suffer withdrawal symptoms! (You think you're a big tuna being caught by Hemingway… What a great short story your incoherent striving might make…) When you hit rock-bottom, you'll likely crash and burn.
(I hope not.)
It's your political allies who've abused the political processes, regulatory agencies and the rule of law. Of course, you care nothing about that: You just want what you want!
And you don't care — what it costs others.
Sanguinemoon, you do have a very brave and sensible point there about how useless Washington DC is and I would add that increasingly many are realising this. You just have to note the deflating percentage of votes cast at the recent national elections to show the people are fed up with their representatives and what they do not do.
Yup, disgust is with Washington is mounting in this age when paying a senator or representative is "free speech" but the obvious potential for censoring the major conduit of real free speech is just fine and reduced to making sound like it's only about an ISP making a deal with Netflix. Even if it starts out that way, I guarantee in a few years that will change. All the so-called Liberals will be able to do is shake their heads and say "we told you so" and the GOPers will have the idiocy to try to blame the Democrats and the government when some of their controversial sites are suddenly slow - despite the fact the controversial leftist sites will be throttled as well. The outcome might be positive in the sense of screwballs to the Left and Right's blogs taking forever to load and therefore reduce readership of them and thus reducing political polarization somewhat (playing the devil's advocate a little here.) But it will still be censorship and and affront to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
Spot on and the real people are being sorely let down considering their loyalty and decency has been played with.
the obvious potential for censoring [of a] major conduit of real free speech
…Obviously requires government regulation! (You know: Lest evil people do evil things…) :)
Next thing you know, an honest citizen won't be able to buy beer on Sunday… That's real suppression; no doubt about it! Let's have the Constitution amended to prevent that — quick, before it's too late!
——————————————————
@
Sang &
RJ: How -exactly- do you guys determine what is "real"? (As in "real people" and "real free speech"…) Some kind of Turing Test, I presume… :)
Would you or your posts pass, I wonder?
This is *slightly* off-topic, but I do believe I've found the perfect Christmas gift for Oakdale and Sanguinemoon. Problem: It's not for sale, if you want one you have to build it yourself-- and I haven't found the list of parts for the thing yet. The basic device is a machine that turns itself off every time you turn it on---- that's all it does. Two of these things are set up, one painted red and the other blue to represent our two major parties here, a stick is placed on the switches so turning off the one turns on the other and vice-versa, then you let the machine "political parties" go at it. These two machines are almost as useful and produce about as much as actual government, and are certainly making about as much sense as political debate. Watch-- and have a bit of fun.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5kLizZHUo[/video]
not sure if Sang and Oak have different Perspective of Perception
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infusefive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fperception.jpg&hash=70baf396d9475d7fd400c949a3479889" rel="cached" data-hash="70baf396d9475d7fd400c949a3479889" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.infusefive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/perception.jpg)
there Are Conflicts of interest .
or this is just my assumption . :monkey:
This is *slightly* off-topic, but I do believe I've found the perfect Christmas gift for Oakdale and Sanguinemoon. Problem: It's not for sale, if you want one you have to build it yourself-- and I haven't found the list of parts for the thing yet. The basic device is a machine that turns itself off every time you turn it on---- that's all it does. Two of these things are set up, one painted red and the other blue to represent our two major parties here, a stick is placed on the switches so turning off the one turns on the other and vice-versa, then you let the machine "political parties" go at it. These two machines are almost as useful and produce about as much as actual government, and are certainly making about as much sense as political debate. Watch-- and have a bit of fun.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5kLizZHUo[/video]
No truer words.
Brilliant mjsmsprt40 and a lot cheaper than the machine on the 'Hill. :lol:
North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, the same as in 2010 and 2011.
Speaking of North Korea, what do all of you think about the ongoing kerfuffle about the movie
The Interview?
I hope Sony makes a nice profit on it. Plus they were handed the sequel's plot on a silver platter…
When Richard J Daley tried to ban Mike Royko's book, Royko was thrilled. Nothing was better for book sales than somebody-- no less than the Mayor of Chicago, the "Boss" himself-- trying to ban it.
I think something similar could happen with this movie. Now, even if the movie isn't any good people will pay for it just because North Korea tried to ban it-- worldwide. It'll become a "must have" because "Freedom of the Press".
This:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuW3XOgW.jpg&hash=73087c235b8a2f106e3ff4b3dbd8dc56" rel="cached" data-hash="73087c235b8a2f106e3ff4b3dbd8dc56" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/uW3XOgW.jpg)
I think something similar could happen with this movie. Now, even if the movie isn't any good people will pay for it just because North Korea tried to ban it-- worldwide. It'll become a "must have" because "Freedom of the Press".
Aka the Streisand effect. ;)
North Korea gets touchy and the US messes their broadband so the game continues. Mind you i will have to be cautious as I have to agree with President Obama when he mildly made a criticism of the company delaying the film in cinemas.
Kevin McCarthy, the fastest speaker of the House of Reps, quits Congress (https://www.wsj.com/politics/kevin-mccarthy-to-quit-congress-months-after-being-ousted-as-house-speaker-17d7d420) in the end of year. Some say that it's because Ghislaine snitched on him.