tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post9058645462741917277..comments2024-01-08T05:15:14.232-08:00Comments on Buckhorn Road: Apparently, our republic is "anti-democratic"W.R. Chandlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-70856301462465003852016-02-08T07:05:59.249-08:002016-02-08T07:05:59.249-08:00Your Blog is beautiful.The stuff you are using tha...Your Blog is beautiful.The stuff you are using that is very useful and helpful...<br />Clipping Path Remove Backgroundhttp://clippingpathsaffron.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-68494990219136800222014-04-22T08:00:37.552-07:002014-04-22T08:00:37.552-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08276820887364430006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-33261095331215256672010-06-28T18:57:08.537-07:002010-06-28T18:57:08.537-07:00Thank you for your kind words, Anonymous; coming f...Thank you for your kind words, Anonymous; coming from you, I will take them as a compliment.<br /><br />You say that the founders hated democracy, and then you call me an idiot.<br /><br />This after I just got done spending multiple paragraphs talking about how our founders hated democracy.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-74116158144145168872010-02-15T17:59:18.504-08:002010-02-15T17:59:18.504-08:00You all are assigned to read the Federalist papers...You all are assigned to read the Federalist papers and come back next week.Fat Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554029467445000453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-25613812220038816582010-02-10T21:40:41.768-08:002010-02-10T21:40:41.768-08:00"AGAIN I WILL STATE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE..."AGAIN I WILL STATE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE VERY SKITTISH OF CORPORATIONS." They said so, and their laws supported that fact as well. These institutions were not viewed as citizens but it was feared if they ever broke loose of the local governments that were suppose to bind them - they would become a second Government. You can't tout the intelligence of the founding fathers, take their words verbatum and then infer the meaning of corporations in to the words "We the People" or "All MEN were created equal". The shareholders already had the right of a vote and a voice as individuals. They didn't just get it with corporate rights. When corporations broke free of local and state governments (which were more democratic and powerful)they gained control of both parties. Truly manipulating the fears of each side to their own gain. Giving just enough of the founding fathers true views on each side to make things seem plausible but also infering the Federalist views confusing the facts.<br />Now that corporations have broke free, any fear related to government should also be tabbed to banks and large corporations. Because they are now a second government not ruling for the people by the people or for the local common good but for an amoral bottom line profit.<br />Put them back where they belong and the social programs of the left are no longer needed. No welfare, no medicare/medicaid, no corporate tax incentives, no cia/nsa, no private military complex. That lowers Federal taxes. People can chase happiness in their chosen fields and sell their skills on the market free from corporate manipulation of wages. People can work the field of their choice and still have a good life, have a parent home with the kids, teaching family values in the home rather than thru school or some other federally run program. that's liberty. I can play the post founding fathers statements too.<br />"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."Jefferson<br />"I hope we shall crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength."<br />Jefferson<br />"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity ecclisiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." MadisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-56472161665493486822010-02-10T21:40:22.063-08:002010-02-10T21:40:22.063-08:00In reality; the founding fathers did establish a r...In reality; the founding fathers did establish a republic with a slant toward democracy. The founding fathers were smart enough to not put all the eggs in one basket-they believed in balance. The party originated by the founding fathers was called the democratic-republican party. This party was predominantly for a small federal government and stronger state governments and democratic ran local governments. Within the party their was always a good range of opinions on commerce, public works and industrilization but never a firm ideaology like today. The strongest slant was toward a strict following of the constitution, they were very distrustful of banks, and corporations and more for the farmer and more common worker.<br />This is the party of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, even Franklin favored this party, etc..) <br />The antithesis to that party was the Federalist party. It was more for a strong Federal Government, banks, merchants, and monied people. They firmly believed in an elitist class. However, they only had one President (Adams). <br />Later the Federalist party ended and some of them joined the Demo-Repub party; however, that party eventually broke up into the Old Repub Part (the current Democratic Party) and the National Republican Party (which became the Whig and later the current Republican Party)So the original ideals of the founding fathers and the elitist values of the Federalist Party was split between the two parties. This explains why the current right wing and Republican Party are very good at pulling their views of limited government; however, completely ignore the multitude of founding father statements that were very anti-bank,and corporations. The actually ideals are split between the two parties<br />Dems - are right about the founding fathers were anti-corporation and banks and were very much for the common good of the labor force....not welfare but for those that worked. Allowing the working man to keep the spoils of his labor rather than a wealthy individual siphon off from his labor.<br /> They absorbed some of the ideals of the Federalist party in regards to a strong central government and allowing a welfare class<br />Repubs - are correct in the assumption of limited Federal Gov't, which lowers taxes.<br /> They absorbed the Federalist ideals of pro-corporation and banks.<br />Remove the federalist views from the two parties and put that together and you have the true values and intentions of the founding fathers.<br />Outside of the individual's rights the seat of power was suppose to reside in the local governments - which were intentionally left to be democratic in nature. Majority rules until the decision violates an individual persons human rights that are outlined by the constitution. This included democratic control of corporations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-9376053702361539612010-02-06T05:37:39.403-08:002010-02-06T05:37:39.403-08:00The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the...<i>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).</i><br /><br />Based on this comment (and the rest in its entirety), I fail to see the difference between this and the Electoral College system -- other than it seemingly would legally do away with the electors who hypothetically can vote against what a state's voters desired. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.Hubehttp://colossus.mu.nunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-34805668994209283222010-02-05T11:03:54.985-08:002010-02-05T11:03:54.985-08:00Never mind that said totalitarian communist dictat...Never mind that said totalitarian communist dictatorships such as People's Republic of China, People's Republic of North Korea, and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) were and are an international laughingstock for calling themselves such a thing and trying to hijack the term.<br /><br />So, in desperation, you compare the United States to a totalitarian communist dictatorship. Stay classy, sport.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-37560700045352341932010-02-05T08:29:02.189-08:002010-02-05T08:29:02.189-08:00OK, let's play the dictionary game:
The defin...OK, let's play the dictionary game:<br /><br />The definition of democracy you provided: "a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives."<br /><br />The definition of republic that I found in the dictionary: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."<br /><br />As I pointed out earlier, the dictionary is worthless, as its definitions of republic and democracy are essentially the same. The last time I checked, neither of the founding documents of my country is a dictionary.<br /><br />What you need to do is put away your dictionary and read the writings of the men who actually founded the United States of America. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a republic in which our rights are given to us by our creator, and it is the job of our elected representatives to protect those rights with which we were born.<br /><br />They also made it perfectly clear that they did not want a democracy in which our rights would be at the mercy of the majority of either the voters themselves or elected representatives who would refuse to follow the rule of law that had been established by our founding documents.<br /><br />But by all means, please continue disregard the founders of our country and the rest of Americans and dictate to us what kind of government we in the United States should really have. What would we do without you?W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-79451052218779842102010-02-04T23:24:12.019-08:002010-02-04T23:24:12.019-08:00It isnt what I say. It is what the definition of t...It isnt what I say. It is what the definition of the word "democracy" says.<br /><br />Answer this question for me; does the USA have "a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives"? It seems to me that it does. And as such it is a democracy. <br /><br />I am sorry that you do not like the way that words in the English language are defined, but that is just the way the world goes. Perhaps your dictionary has some other, strange definition of democracy but none of the ones I have seen are very different from the one I posted.Donalbainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-64343973662101554102010-02-04T08:16:54.805-08:002010-02-04T08:16:54.805-08:00My whining? You are such a joke. Donalbain, I wi...My whining? You are such a joke. Donalbain, I will spell this out for you one more time:<br /><br />The United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. It is defined as republic in the Constitution; the founders who wrote the document specifically emphasized that they had created a republic and in fact abhorred democracy.<br /><br />But who cares what the actual writers of the Constitution and the founders of the United States think; some Brit named Donalbain says differently.<br /><br />Doubling down once again I see.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-56805602983605571092010-02-04T00:11:12.937-08:002010-02-04T00:11:12.937-08:00The point is, that you dont need to use a word in ...The point is, that you dont need to use a word in a constitution for it to be a good description of your country.<br />The dictionary defines a democracy as having <i>"a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives."</i> The USA has one of those forms of government. Therefore it is a democracy. I am pretty certain that the constitution of Iraq never had the word "dictatorship" in it, but it was one. And so it is with the USA. It fits the dictionary definition of "democracy" to a tee. So, it is, despite your whining, a democracy.Donalbainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-91740236246637221672010-02-03T15:23:50.482-08:002010-02-03T15:23:50.482-08:00Donalbain,
Did you miss the lack of the word "...Donalbain,<br />Did you miss the lack of the word "democracy" or "democratic" in our founding documents, and the inclusion of "republican"?<br /><br />The differences between democracies and republics go beyond representation. Republics have representation, too. What's your point?<br /><br />I thought I told you to go watch Parliament or something.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-53868976139351099782010-02-03T14:33:44.205-08:002010-02-03T14:33:44.205-08:00Chanman: Did you miss the dictionary definition of...Chanman: Did you miss the dictionary definition of the word "democracy"<br /><br />1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.<br /><br />That describes the USA perfectly doesn't it? If not, how not?<br /><br />And Darren<br />; WHAT exactly do you see as the benefits of the electoral college over the popular vote act?Donalbainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-37734977064008033802010-02-03T11:17:42.499-08:002010-02-03T11:17:42.499-08:00The reasons for setting up a republic, and for cre...The reasons for setting up a republic, and for creating the Electoral College, are more important today than they were at the founding. <br /><br />I support our current form of government. Well, I could do without the direct election of Senators and go back to the way they were originally chosen.Darrenhttp://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-35310246357652592252010-02-03T07:22:51.778-08:002010-02-03T07:22:51.778-08:00Donalbain,
Please point to me in our Declaration o...Donalbain,<br />Please point to me in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution where the word "democracy" or "democratic" is used.<br /><br />You will find our republican form of government established in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution.<br /><br />Now go watch Parliament or something.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-40814284926819493952010-02-03T05:05:43.483-08:002010-02-03T05:05:43.483-08:00The USA is a democracy. It is also a republic.
de...The USA is a democracy. It is also a republic.<br /><br />democracy<br />/dimokrsi/<br /><br /> • noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way. 3 control of a group by the majority of its members.<br /><br /><br />republic<br /> • noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.<br /><br /><br /><br />The question regarding the National Popular Vote Act should not be is it more "democratic", or less, but what would be the practical effects of it? Thoughts on that?Donalbainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-52478390576182787632010-02-02T13:13:00.313-08:002010-02-02T13:13:00.313-08:00George,
Thank you for that information. I saw man...George,<br />Thank you for that information. I saw many of the usual suspects: Rockefeller Foundation, Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-36920567743881248062010-02-02T12:52:15.609-08:002010-02-02T12:52:15.609-08:00Funding: http://www.newamerica.net/about/funding
...Funding: http://www.newamerica.net/about/funding<br /><br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-35750940268855997342010-02-02T12:30:23.152-08:002010-02-02T12:30:23.152-08:00I'm sorry to see that you want to move us towa...I'm sorry to see that you want to move us toward a democracy. I'm glad that you are not in charge.W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-1509864440893187642010-02-02T11:43:35.704-08:002010-02-02T11:43:35.704-08:00I support the National Popular Vote bill.
The Nat...I support the National Popular Vote bill.<br /><br />The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). <br /><br />Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.<br /><br />The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). <br /><br />The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. <br /><br />The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. <br /><br />In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.<br /><br />The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.<br /><br />See http://www.NationalPopularVote.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-32026710273902954712010-02-02T09:26:52.809-08:002010-02-02T09:26:52.809-08:00Every one of Bobier's proposals calls for the ...Every one of Bobier's proposals calls for the U.S. to be taken more toward pure democracy.<br /><br />If your argument is that we already have a democracy based on the way our system currently works, then why, as I must presume, do you wish to see it changed?<br /><br />I don't argue that electors are usually a rubber stamp of the voters of each state, but if, as you appear to argue, there is no difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote, then Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, now wouldn't he?W.R. Chandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05908482384887766964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648942.post-56871058823030361062010-02-02T09:18:19.588-08:002010-02-02T09:18:19.588-08:00A "republican" form of government means ...A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill). <br /><br />If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com