It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The United States is a Republic not a democracy

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Ya know...I think what I said last night was a little on the harsh side.
Actually the synopsis of the outline you gave did seem like a worthwhile lesson, maybe just "peppered" with opinion, but isn't everything.

....glad you have me on ignore though. Far as I know you are the first.
Kinda cool.




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Constitutional Republic Vs Pure Democracy




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


By the way. This thead seems to be evolving away from the OP, in that we were discussing what our government was set up to be....A republic with a democratic style of management; a capitalistic economy all inside a federal framework. Sorta.

Is the conversation now turning to what, in reality, it has evolved or should I say degenerated to? If so, that might be another thread.

Just sayin.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I am well aware what a Direct democracy is and the other various uses of the term, ironically it has been me trying to educate you lot on what the word means and now you have the cheek to try and tell me!

In this post of yours you admit that the US is democratic, ergo, it is a democracy. What type was never up for discussion nor was whether the word was "needed" or not.

What was up for discussion was the possibility that Republic and Democracy were two inalienable, different concepts when in reality they often sit side by side.

Find me a single example of a "direct democracy" where the people vote on every government decision. There is not a single nation in the world that practices this, mainly due to logistical issues but also due to the fact that is recognised that democracy isn't about majority rules, but also about dialogue, discussion and compromise between different groups. Direct democracy rarely allows this.

So, to summarise: By it's very nature, the US is a Democracy. The form of Government is a Constitutional Republic.

One does not preclude the other. To think otherwise indicates you do not know what you're talking about, to put it frankly.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


By the way. This thead seems to be evolving away from the OP, in that we were discussing what our government was set up to be....A republic with a democratic style of management; a capitalistic economy all inside a federal framework. Sorta.

Is the conversation now turning to what, in reality, it has evolved or should I say degenerated to? If so, that might be another thread.

Just sayin.


Exactly!
If you open a store and the sign out front says "Steak house" but over the years you slowly shift to sea food, people will come looking for steak until you alter the sign.

The United States was set up to be a republic, and the metaphor of the sign still reads republic in our constitution. Some times we amend the constitution but as of this date the republic is still the advertised product.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
To remove all doubt, maybe we should incorporate it into our name like those other indisputable republicans, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Peoples Republic of China.

The Peoples Republic of America or the Union of American Republics.

Would that make you happy?



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
To remove all doubt, maybe we should incorporate it into our name like those other indisputable republicans, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Peoples Republic of China.

The Peoples Republic of America or the Union of American Republics.

Would that make you happy?

No, I like The United States of America.
I think what would make me happy is if the people of this country appreciated what being a republic meant and stopped electing representatives who didnt follow the constitution.
If you want to live in a country that is a democracy the best thing to do is either get the constitution amended or go to a country that more suits your ideals.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


I assume you just ignore posts that try to teach you something and just like to stick stoicaly to your guns? Admirable, if foolish....

Anyway, I'll say it real slow and clear:

BEING A REPUBLIC DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
BEING A DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT A REPUBLIC!
THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE

Get a damned dictionary, for crying out loud. Or, if it's easier, see my post on this page, about 5 posts up. Explains it nice and easy for you.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


Thanks, but I already live in a democracy.

If you have such a fetish for the term republic, move to China.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by robwerden
 


I assume you just ignore posts that try to teach you something and just like to stick stoicaly to your guns? Admirable, if foolish....

Anyway, I'll say it real slow and clear:

BEING A REPUBLIC DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
BEING A DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT A REPUBLIC!
THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE

Get a damned dictionary, for crying out loud. Or, if it's easier, see my post on this page, about 5 posts up. Explains it nice and easy for you.


I try my best to ignore ignorance so yes.
Legally, under the constitution we are a Republic. In order for democracy to be in effect the Constitution needs to be amended. The practicing of democracy takes place and that is the problem.
I understand the system we have now practices democracy and there is no argument there, the argument is the descriptor of the form of government. If communism was practiced by the government but the constitution was not amended the description would remain a republic regardless of the actual practice in the legislature.
Im not here arguing what is the current practice, only the official title. My goal is to correct the terminology. With the correct language comes the practice of the method it describes.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
reply to post by robwerden
 


Thanks, but I already live in a democracy.

If you have such a fetish for the term republic, move to China.

I would expect no less of a elitist statement from a follower of democracy. Majority rules, so get out? That is the true ideology of a democracy.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
You need to identify what the current form, as closely as possible before any correction could be made though. To just fight for the correct terminology without identifying the nature, you just have a word.

As far as the post that states I need a dictionary to understand that two terms, it seems you have failed to recognize what my replies are saying and/or doing.

I am not arguing for or against the actual terms used. Browse through some of my posts pertaining to either this argument or another thread and I have clearly stated that in the original form, the United States government is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.

Some would even state that this doesn't resemble and call it a representative republic, but that is just redundant and usually used when unable to explain or understand what a republic is.

Throughout this post I have played Devil's Advocate to get people, mainly the OP (which as stated and confirmed is willingly ignoring questions) to look deeper and not just use labels without knowing why they are using labels.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
Clearly I made my point and what I wanted to prove, and that is the type of government we are. I single out Obama lovers because they are different from Obama supporters and people who voted Obama and people who voted Democrat. They love Obama with a passion and believe everything he says, and everyone who runs around screaming for his cause uses the defining term democracy incorrectly.


apparently these "obama lovers" are easily indentifiable by you...could you please provide us with any type of provable statistical data pertaining to the numbers of these "lovers", that believe "everything" he says. by the way...the difference between a democracy and a republic, as it pertains to the U.S. is taught in grammer school (1st grade through 6th grade), so as much as you would like to think, that this is a such a mental acuity test...it is not.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


The purpose of some questions to me is to incite a response that tries to make me see the error in my thinking.

I purposely did not answer some questions because I knew exactly where they were spinning to.

I am not attempting to spin doctor people into changing their political position but only to see my statement of the legal description of the form of government being a Republic.

Yes, I see what is being practiced is democracy. You don't need to convince me that the practice is happening.

What I see as the point of this thread is the style of government being advertised by the Constitution is not being delivered. Ultimately I do intend on getting as many people as I can to refrain from practicing or accepting the practice of democracy.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by robwerden
Clearly I made my point and what I wanted to prove, and that is the type of government we are. I single out Obama lovers because they are different from Obama supporters and people who voted Obama and people who voted Democrat. They love Obama with a passion and believe everything he says, and everyone who runs around screaming for his cause uses the defining term democracy incorrectly.


apparently these "obama lovers" are easily indentifiable by you...could you please provide us with any type of provable statistical data pertaining to the numbers of these "lovers", that believe "everything" he says. by the way...the difference between a democracy and a republic, as it pertains to the U.S. is taught in grammer school (1st grade through 6th grade), so as much as you would like to think, that this is a such a mental acuity test...it is not.


You really don't want me to identify Obama lovers. The act in it self will create such a fight on this forum it will surely get my self as well as many others banned.

I prefer to allow the people i'm referring to post in this thread and expose them selves. It is already happening.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by robwerden
Clearly I made my point and what I wanted to prove, and that is the type of government we are. I single out Obama lovers because they are different from Obama supporters and people who voted Obama and people who voted Democrat. They love Obama with a passion and believe everything he says, and everyone who runs around screaming for his cause uses the defining term democracy incorrectly.


apparently these "obama lovers" are easily indentifiable by you...could you please provide us with any type of provable statistical data pertaining to the numbers of these "lovers", that believe "everything" he says. by the way...the difference between a democracy and a republic, as it pertains to the U.S. is taught in grammer school (1st grade through 6th grade), so as much as you would like to think, that this is a such a mental acuity test...it is not.


You really don't want me to identify Obama lovers. The act in it self will create such a fight on this forum it will surely get my self as well as many others banned.

I prefer to allow the people i'm referring to post in this thread and expose them selves. It is already happening.


i thought so...and that's it for me on this thread.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


So wait....stop people from practicing democracy? In what way? How will you elect your local politicians? How will you elect your senators and respective representative for your district?

I understand where you are coming from. The slow erosion of words and meanings allow politicians and smooth-talkers to coax the populace into agreeing more easily with their stances. That is what pols do.

Problem here is, just getting people on board by only stating what we are as it relates to founding documents doesn't educate anyone.

I also do not care your political persuasion nor does it even pertain to the argument. It does seem though that you see the Constitution as the Law of the Land and that is a good thing, at least in my eyes.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


You are tooting your own horn? Wow....you do know that forum moderators are just people and not the end authority right?

I applaud your efforts, but now you are just showing arrogance and making a claim as silly as "The debate is over"



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by robwerden
 


So wait....stop people from practicing democracy? In what way? How will you elect your local politicians? How will you elect your senators and respective representative for your district?

I understand where you are coming from. The slow erosion of words and meanings allow politicians and smooth-talkers to coax the populace into agreeing more easily with their stances. That is what pols do.

Problem here is, just getting people on board by only stating what we are as it relates to founding documents doesn't educate anyone.

I also do not care your political persuasion nor does it even pertain to the argument. It does seem though that you see the Constitution as the Law of the Land and that is a good thing, at least in my eyes.


We are like minded in many ways, and I see many of your points as being coherent. Discussions on a forum is never the same as face to face and many times inflection is not conveyed.

That being said, and going off the topic as it was originally intended, the act of electing officials is a major problem because of the democracy required to do it. I find many flaws in the majority vote because it opens up to special interests.
I do not personally have a solution to that, other than repercussions on the elected officials for not following the rule of law which stems from the constitution. The process of elections has been modified to try and fix many problems over the years, but It always boils down to what they do after they are elected. If we elect them to do something that is democracy. If we elect them to serve the constitution that is a Republic. The truth is we do need to elect people and the elections do need a majority rule. The reason for the election though needs to be to seve the Constitution and not the needs of the majority.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join