toldailytopic: Are you prepared for Taxmageddon?

[Letsargue]

Republic vs. Democracy in this context is little more than semantics. Nobody lists western democracies and then says "Oh but the US isn't a democracy." It isn't a PURE, direct democracy no, but no modern country is.

The confusion seems to stem from the founding father's definition of democracy (by which they meant little more than mob rule) vs. the modern one.

In fact a constitutional/presidential republic is included in the modern definition of democracy, it is simply a form of democracy. But you seem to be stuck in high school civics definitions rather than wanting to discuss the issues at hand. I would expect all of you to know better than this.

Is that the same as the Lord's Church is now called the Catholic, or Mormon, or the Baptist, or the JW Church??


Paul -- 092412

 

[TomO]

In fact a constitutional/presidential republic is included in the modern definition of democracy, it is simply a form of democracy. But you seem to be stuck in high school civics definitions rather than wanting to discuss the issues at hand. I would expect all of you to know better than this.

:yawn: When you reach high school civics comprehension I'll take your correction a bit more seriously...Until then I'll go back to letting you continue on your "Teh majority sez" line of reasoning.

Hopefully, Wikipedia has an entry on the U.S. Constitution for you also.

 

[TomO]

The United States is called a "democratic republic". What that means is that we are a limited democracy in that the will of the majority is limited by the rights of individuals and minorities.

Quite lain:

 

[PureX]

Quite lain:

Would you prefer that the rights of individuals and minorities NOT be protected from the will of the majority?

 

[Alate_One]

:yawn: When you reach high school civics comprehension I'll take your correction a bit more seriously...Until then I'll go back to letting you continue on your "Teh majority sez" line of reasoning.

If you read what I actually said, I said it was smart for representatives to listen to their constituencies. If the majority of them are for something, and feel strongly about it, you'd best vote accordingly or risk not being re-elected.

I'm not saying representatives must (or do) always go with the majority opinion (that's the point of a Republic), in some cases they must do what's right and take the political heat. For example, what happened to the democratic party over civil rights?

Considering the data shows that tax cuts do not aid economic growth to any measurable extent and tax increases do not hinder economic growth, the answer is obvious. The data and public opinion overlap and we have a deficit problem to address. Yet Republicans (who claim to be deficit hawks) continue to resist tax increases on the basis of some esoteric principle that nobody else holds. The situation is unbelievable.

Hopefully, Wikipedia has an entry on the U.S. Constitution for you also.

Right. The one I used to explain to my mother that the constitution mentions 3/5ths of "other" persons a few months back? I had no problem with the constitution test(s) that have gone around recently. You're complaining about semantics because you can't figure out any way to attack the meat of the actual argument.

 

[TomO]

Would you prefer that the rights of individuals and minorities NOT be protected from the will of the majority?

On the contrary...I am a firm believer in the concept. Historically speaking, "majorities" are some of the most dangerous groups which have ever existied. When I say "Quite" it is an agreement. lain:

 

[TomO]

If you read what I actually said, I said it was smart for representatives to listen to their constituencies. If the majority of them are for something, and feel strongly about it, you'd best vote accordingly or risk not being re-elected.

I'm not saying representatives must (or do) always go with the majority opinion (that's the point of a Republic), in some cases they must do what's right and take the political heat. For example, what happened to the democratic party over civil rights?

Considering the data shows that tax cuts do not aid economic growth to any measurable extent and tax increases do not hinder economic growth, the answer is obvious. The data and public opinion overlap and we have a deficit problem to address. Yet Republicans (who claim to be deficit hawks) continue to resist tax increases on the basis of some esoteric principle that nobody else holds. The situation is unbelievable.


Right. The one I used to explain to my mother that the constitution mentions 3/5ths of "other" persons a few months back? I had no problem with the constitution test(s) that have gone around recently. You're complaining about semantics because you can't figure out any way to attack the meat of the actual argument.

:nono: No actually the semantics simply belied a sense which is prevalent in the country. That being that Representatives are there to vote how their constituency demands; which was not the intention of the Founders nor is it a good idea. The constituency tends to be made up of mumbling idiots of all types. When I vote to elect a Representative it is because I trust him/her to make an informed valid decision based on the information they are privy to. Information which may or may not be at my disposal. THIS is the point of a Republic...and the "D" word gets thrown around much too often for my liking.

Your above bold-ed statement though shows that you are aware of this and as such I repent. I'm sorry I doubted your comprehension.

 

[PureX]

On the contrary...I am a firm believer in the concept. Historically speaking, "majorities" are some of the most dangerous groups which have ever existied. When I say "Quite" it is an agreement. lain:

Sorry. I have smilie deficit disorder. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how to interpret their "facial" expressions.

 

[TomO]

Sorry. I have smilie deficit disorder. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how to interpret their "facial" expressions.

:e4e: Not a problem.