America is NOT a democracy

**rock_lobster** · 07-09-08, 04:16 PM

America isnt a pure democracy. It's a pretty good mixture of several types of systems. Nothing wrong with that. I can still drive where I want, when I want, I can own my own business, hold a job, get married if I please, have as many kids as I so choose, etc... So I'm good.

**Pineapple!** · 07-09-08, 04:21 PM

dammit, iravedic....

you just said everything I was going to say!

Representative Democracy should be used, rather than the term "Republic".

**Glitch** · 07-09-08, 04:40 PM

I learned in Middle school about the anchient greeks and what a Republic was.

For the last 25 years it has been easy to remeber.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

It is amazing how people can say something a thousand times and not know what they are saying or even understand what it means.

**iravedic** · 07-09-08, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pineapple!

dammit, iravedic....

you just said everything I was going to say!

Representative Democracy should be used, rather than the term "Republic".

Ah, but there's the rub - we are not a simple representative democracy but rather a constitutional republic which is based on a representative democratic system.

**Kraker Jak** · 07-09-08, 06:35 PM

Asian, us smart folk already knew that

But for you people who seriously want to argue with him.....

Go ahead and hang yourself......

**Gumby** · 07-09-08, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

Ah, but there's the rub - we are not a simple representative democracy but rather a constitutional republic which is based on a representative democratic system.

and here is the real dirt on it. In the English language, there are only a few absolute rules. Here is one of them: Usage determines definition. Therefore, in modern language usage, our constitutional republic which is based on a representative democratic system is often referred to as a democracy. And since usage determines definition, we do in fact, have a democracy.

**DJ Ms. White** · 07-09-08, 07:49 PM

ub3r 1337 pwnage that

**RottnJP** · 07-09-08, 08:12 PM

Come on, is it really just semantics? Once you get past the mildly sanctimonious "I know something you don't know," part of the post

there is a valid point there. Greek democracy was a chaotic thing, and people could decide their vote on whatever basis they wanted. Under our representative democracy, the "representatives" were meant to be a filter, an intermediate level of folks who could be better-able to interpret the will of the people with due consideration given to other factors and limits.

So in a pure democracy, someone could have a vote that, say, "blue is the state color," and furthermore all those not wearing blue shall forfeit all of their property to the "Blues." And if that passed a majority vote, hey, fuck you Red Guy!

Under our system (to the point raised above) if some Blue folks start griping about non-Blues, and want to have a vote like that, the layer of representatives are supposed to be the "cooler heads" that can check the existing body of law, starting with the framework established by the constitution, and say, "Hey guys, I empathize and all, but we don't have the right or authority to pass your anti-Red agenda."

Unfortunately, these days I think folks on both sides of the aisle are all-too-willing to vote their feelings, in part because they have decided (or have rationalized to themselves) that the U.S. Constitution is out-dated, anachronistic, etc.

Edited to add: So, with my delayed posting skills, I could just say, "Like Ira said..."

**Rustxko78** · 07-09-08, 08:19 PM

It's certainly not a Theocracy, Dictatorship, or Monarchy, so I am satisfied.

**Toker** · 07-09-08, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by RottnJP

Come on, is it really just semantics? Once you get past the mildly sanctimonious "I know something you don't know," part of the post

there is a valid point there. Greek democracy was a chaotic thing, and people could decide their vote on whatever basis they wanted. Under our representative democracy, the "representatives" were meant to be a filter, an intermediate level of folks who could be better-able to interpret the will of the people with due consideration given to other factors and limits.

So in a pure democracy, someone could have a vote that, say, "blue is the state color," and furthermore all those not wearing blue shall forfeit all of their property to the "Blues." And if that passed a majority vote, hey, fuck you Red Guy!

Under our system (to the point raised above) if some Blue folks start griping about non-Blues, and want to have a vote like that, the layer of representatives are supposed to be the "cooler heads" that can check the existing body of law, starting with the framework established by the constitution, and say, "Hey guys, I empathize and all, but we don't have the right or authority to pass your anti-Red agenda."

Unfortunately, these days I think folks on both sides of the aisle are all-too-willing to vote their feelings, in part because they have decided (or have rationalized to themselves) that the U.S. Constitution is out-dated, anachronistic, etc.

Edited to add: So, with my delayed posting skills, I could just say, "Like Ira said..."

/thread