Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
A Democracy is the mob rule with no respect for minorities.
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by
them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
This is a representative REPUBLIC not a Democracy. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a DEMOCRACY. Under a Democracy a dictatorship can be
installed in a nation.
How do you come to this conclusion? If a man is elected by the People, and they like
him and want him to keep doing his job, how does that
make him a "Dictator"? A Dictator seizes
power; it isn't bestowed upon him by the will of the People.
In a Representative REPUBLIC everyone must be represented even if the majority votes to take away the rights of minorities.
During the past eight years Bush started a war based on lies in Iraq. The "Minority", as you claim to uphold, was against
this. How were
the rights of the Minority protected?
The "Patriot" Act, with its illegal surveillance programs? With "Free Speech Zones?" Hm. Sounds like the kinds of things Dictators do.
Fact is, "everyone" is not
represented in a Republic, despite what you might think. If they were, many of the events that led us to this
point would not have happened. Minorities are frozen out of the process all the time. In fact, agents within this "Republic" have long used
minority status, both racially-based and politically-based, to specifically remove
the rights of varied minorities (homosexuals are one group
that comes to mind).
And seriously, considering that even the Constitution can be altered and/or interpreted by what you call "mob rule", does "Republic" really even
fit? Right now the Supreme Court says you effectively have no Constitutional right to privacy. It says so because the Court is currently 5-4
Republican majority. A year from now the makeup of the Court may be reversed, and then what? Ya'll get my point here?
How exactly?... by being undermanned, soldiers having to do double their duties because there is not enough money.
If you're referring to the specifics of the most recent wars, you're barking up the wrong tree. Troops in Iraq were undermanned because Rumsfeld
refused to pool the full resources necessary to do the job in the first place. Never mind the illegality of the war itself; every competent General
in the Pentagon was screaming that we needed at least
500K troops--sure, the number we eventually used was enough for initial combat in a
conventional "shoot-em-up" fight, but it was woefully inadequate to the task of pacifying
Iraq and fighting the insurgency.
Rumsfeld (and of course his "boss") wanted smaller numbers for two main reasons:
1. Rumsfeld wanted to prove that his years as a MIC lobbyist weren't for nothing, as a smaller force could effectively handle the primary combat
operations using all the hardware he used to peddle as an industry hack.
2. There weren't enough troops ready for deployment to do the job. Not to say we didn't have the troops, period
do--but the full, adequate force for the job would have required us to pull troops from other
areas where they're being used as a "gotta pay
for this" budget line-item and to intimidate local populations. Either that, or there would have to be a Draft, which would have immediately ended
all public support for the war.
The DEmocrats voted not to give money to the REpublican party which was going to be sent to offer more protection for our troops, and DEMOCRATS
were using this as a political tool trying to make the Republican party side with the DEMOCRATS...
I call BS on this one. First, had the Dems been able to stop the funding, Iraq would be over
. Second, The Democrats don't "give money" to
the Republicans to "give to the troops". Someone who claims to know so much about civics should know better.
Now on the other hand, it was
Republicans during the first six years of the Bush Administration who routinely held back full funding for
veterans' affairs and health care, body armor, etc. It was Republicans who insisted soldiers use Humvees as inner-city-war-zone patrol
vehicles--which is something they were never designed for in the first place (doesn't matter how much you slow it down by welding steel plates on it,
it's still a damn Jeep)--rather than speed production of the Stryker AFV, which is far better suited to the task. It was Republicans who violated
the soldiers' faith in their leadership by sending the same people back two, three, even four times, held soldiers far past their agreed-upon
deployments, and reactivated retired soldiers through the Stop-Loss program, essentially using it as a "back-door draft" in order to avoid a
Draft. Not to mention the fact that rather than pay for the war by developing some reasonable stream of revenue (such as higher taxes on
the richest 1% of Americans) Bush chose to put the whole damn thing on a credit card, thereby driving the National Debt to record levels and setting
up any Democratic successors with a problem so huge as to be almost unresolvable without tremendous political will (a very deliberate act and a
standard of the Republican playbook; look up David Stockman).
Obviously you have no idea what FREEDOM OF SPEECH means...
Instead of trying to tell people to shut up because you don't agree with them, you should be responding to other threads more to your
Oh I know exactly
what Freedom of Speech means. Republicans have been trying to destroy it for years
. My comments were more generally
directed toward the impotent wannabe-revolutionary rage I see on ATS on a daily basis.
Really?... i wonder why the main goal of Democrats is to not only install Socialist programs but to disarm ALL Americans...
You have no idea whatsoever what Socialism actually means
outside what you've been told by your masters.
What you call "socialism" is an attempt to fix the very real
problems we face, rather than the made-up ones, and to move Society
rather than slide into obscurity and endless civil war through neglect.
The forefathers of this nation made it clear...
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and
on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So perhaps you should be the one to shut up, since obviously you are not aware of what the forefathers agreed on, and bleed for to guarantee rights
for ALL future generations of Americans...
And again, as every aspect
of that "Republican Form of Government" is based on Majority Rule (Democracy, for those without the brains to put
2+2 together) the definition you provide is effectively moot, and more a question of semantics than actual function.
Read Thomas Paine and get back to me.
[edit on 4/17/2009 by The Nighthawk]