The Political Party

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

kav wrote:

---

This is the tired old propaganda, if you ask me.  You drive through the suburbs of any American city, and you see miles and miles of McMansions.  By historic and global standards, we have outrageous wealth, and widely dispersed.

But some people just need to whine, I guess.

[guido61]

 

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

This is the tired old propaganda, if you ask me.  You drive through the suburbs of any American city, and you see miles and miles of McMansions.  By historic and global standards, we have outrageous wealth, and widely dispersed.

---

By "historic and global standards", yes.  But when compared to when America was at its zenith of economic and social power, i.e. the 1950s and 60s?  We're moving in the opposite direction.

But are we better off than were the Europeans during the Dark Ages?   Sure.

[mauser]

---

kav wrote:

---

Or we can have a Republic, the way the nation was intended to be.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

Or we can have a Republic, the way the nation was intended to be.

---

"republic" isn't a word that is capitalized.  Unless you don't understand WTF you're talking about.  Capitializing the "R" in "Republic" or the "D" in "Democracy" makes reference to the two political parties in America.  Neither of which have any particular relation to the political terms they've chosen to name themselves after.

 Being a "republic" in the United States simply means that we democratically elect people to represent us and vote for us.   You know---that House and Senate and Electoral College that so many people despise.   A pure democracy would mean we vote on everything, which would be tantamount to mob rule.  Which is why pure democracy doesn't really exist anywhere.   Technically, what we have would best be described as a republican form of democracy.

The founders didn't really trust democracy, so they put a lot of republican safeguards in place.  So that cooler/smarter heads would hopefully prevail.  How well that has worked out of us?   You can make your own assessment about that.

[kav]

U2BM and mauser appear to believe they approach the same intellectual level as Justice Brandeis. Amusing.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:

The founders didn't really trust democracy, so they put a lot of republican safeguards in place.  So that cooler/smarter heads would hopefully prevail.  How well that has worked out of us?   You can make your own assessment about that.

---

Actually, no, I don't think that was the reason.  That would be elistism, where we just need to find the best and brightest to rule us.

The founders didn't trust anybody, least of all the smart people.  So they put in mechanisms to make us deliberate, to slow us down.  They, like bastiat, believed in having few rules, so they should be hard to make.

[guido61]

Hearing Republicans shout "we're a Republic! not a Democracy!"---as if that means the founders somehow preferred one modern political party over the other is pretty common.

Unfortunately, it only exposes the political and historical ignorance of those who do the shouting.

[guido61]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Actually, no, I don't think that was the reason.  That would be elistism, where we just need to find the best and brightest to rule us.

The founders didn't trust anybody, least of all the smart people.  So they put in mechanisms to make us deliberate, to slow us down.  They, like bastiat, believed in having few rules, so they should be hard to make.

---

LOL....which "smart people" didn't they trust?   The founders WERE the elites!   They were to a man white, male, rich landowners--most of whom were lawyers--- and they gave power ONLY to themselves!

It was the uneducated rubes they didn't trust with democracy.    They didn't even fully trust republicanism.  While they gave the rubes a bit of control with the House (provided they were white, male and owned land), they gave equal control to the Senate which were originally intended to be all political appointees!  It was only after the 17th amendment in 1912 that we began to have direct election of senators.  Which was a progressive reform spearheaded by Democrat William Jennings Bryan.

George Washington was one of the richest men in the nation at the time of the founding, and there was an early movement by many of the founders to have him made King rather than an elected President.

The way many people have rewritten the history of our founding is laughably absurd.  Yes, there were many good things about it and about the founders.   But any idea that they were all "men of the people" is pretty silly.  Most were rich guys who wanted separation from England because they wanted to keep more of their money and wealth for themselves rather than give it to a country and government thousands of miles away.

Not that that isn't necessarily a good reason, but the revolution was largely one group of elites fighting against another group of elites.  And using common men to do most of the actual fighting for them.

Let's not make it into more than what it actually was.

[ckt]

Frankly, it is quite laughable (in a very creepy kind of way) when the OP chooses to pontificate on about "The Law" when he has repeatedly asserted that he would have no issue whatsoever at taking the law into his own hands and inflicting injury on others without even a modicum of remorse should his hallowed second amendment ever be meddled with (even if he simply assumed it was about to be meddled with).

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:
Hearing Republicans shout "we're a Republic! not a Democracy!"---as if that means the founders somehow preferred one modern political party over the other is pretty common.

Unfortunately, it only exposes the political and historical ignorance of those who do the shouting.

---

Now that's funny!  You misunderstand people, then accuse them of being ignorant, when you're the one misunderstanding.  lol! 

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

Actually, no, I don't think that was the reason.  That would be elistism, where we just need to find the best and brightest to rule us.

The founders didn't trust anybody, least of all the smart people.  So they put in mechanisms to make us deliberate, to slow us down.  They, like bastiat, believed in having few rules, so they should be hard to make.

---

LOL....which "smart people" didn't they trust?   The founders WERE the elites!   ...

George Washington was one of the richest men in the nation at the time of the founding, and there was an early movement by many of the founders to have him made King rather than an elected President.

But he didn't accept, did he? (Where's that lighbulb emoticon?)

The way many people have rewritten the history of our founding is laughably absurd. 

And it takes a certain amount of character to recognize character in others. The person who has never risked anything, for instance, doesn't know what that kind of fear feels like. The founders genuinely risked life and fortune, and in some cases lost one or both. Sure you can over-saint them, but to not recognize their courage and goodness is to show oneself a small person.

Most were rich guys who wanted separation from England because they wanted to keep more of their money and wealth for themselves rather than give it to a country and government thousands of miles away.

I think Washington could have found a lot easier ways to stay rich.

[guido61]

Who have I misunderstood? I seriously doubt many Republicans "reminding" me that we are a republic are doing so because they so much favor our elected-representative form of government over a direct referendum

[Zooey]

---

mauser wrote:

Or we can have a Republic, the way the nation was intended to be.

---

I used to have a social studies teacher in high school who would bust that one out every time someone made a reference to democracy in the US.  What a **bleep** that guy was, but that's public education for you. 

[guido61]

Re: Markoh. My point is that it's incorrect to say the founders opposed the educated and the elite. They WERE the elite. Many wanted a king. Look up the biographies of these guys and try again to tell me they opposed elitism.

[mauser]

---

kav wrote:

U2BM and mauser appear to believe they approach the same intellectual level as Justice Brandeis. Amusing.

---

Apparently the dearly departed Justice was unaware that our isn't a democracy.

[kav]

---

mauser wrote:

---

kav wrote:

U2BM and mauser appear to believe they approach the same intellectual level as Justice Brandeis. Amusing.

---

Apparently the dearly departed Justice was unaware that our isn't a democracy.

---

:LOL:

[RedRoadEnsemble]

Did a black man speak after 7 years?

[mauser]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

Or we can have a Republic, the way the nation was intended to be.

---

"republic" isn't a word that is capitalized.  Unless you don't understand WTF you're talking about.  Capitializing the "R" in "Republic" or the "D" in "Democracy" makes reference to the two political parties in America.  Neither of which have any particular relation to the political terms they've chosen to name themselves after.

 Being a "republic" in the United States simply means that we democratically elect people to represent us and vote for us.   You know---that House and Senate and Electoral College that so many people despise.   A pure democracy would mean we vote on everything, which would be tantamount to mob rule.  Which is why pure democracy doesn't really exist anywhere.   Technically, what we have would best be described as a republican form of democracy.

The founders didn't really trust democracy, so they put a lot of republican safeguards in place.  So that cooler/smarter heads would hopefully prevail.  How well that has worked out of us?   You can make your own assessment about that.

---

My assessment is that two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner kinda sucks if you're the lamb.

[Just Me]

---

mauser wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

---

Or we can have a Republic, the way the nation was intended to be.

---

"republic" isn't a word that is capitalized.  Unless you don't understand WTF you're talking about.  Capitializing the "R" in "Republic" or the "D" in "Democracy" makes reference to the two political parties in America.  Neither of which have any particular relation to the political terms they've chosen to name themselves after.

 Being a "republic" in the United States simply means that we democratically elect people to represent us and vote for us.   You know---that House and Senate and Electoral College that so many people despise.   A pure democracy would mean we vote on everything, which would be tantamount to mob rule.  Which is why pure democracy doesn't really exist anywhere.   Technically, what we have would best be described as a republican form of democracy.

The founders didn't really trust democracy, so they put a lot of republican safeguards in place.  So that cooler/smarter heads would hopefully prevail.  How well that has worked out of us?   You can make your own assessment about that.

---

My assessment is that two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner kinda sucks if you're the lamb.

---

thats what you "conservatives " do, isnt it? Boil everything down to bumper sticker simplicity, to fit your bumper sticker intellect, until it is no lnger relavant, accurate, or honest.

We are used to it by now.

[mauser]

---

Just Me wrote:

thats what you "conservatives " do, isnt it? Boil everything down to bumper sticker simplicity, to fit your bumper sticker intellect, until it is no lnger relavant, accurate, or honest. We are used to it by now.

---

I'm definitely used to people like you doing your best to deny the obvious.