Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:28 PM']I've said it already.......Conservatism does not equal Orthodox. [right][snapback]884151[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:02 PM']What is pejorative? The attitudes of the so-called conservatives on this board. I don't hear this kind of language nor do I see this attitude much in the "real world" from the conservatives that are affiliated with the Republican party, outside possibly Rush Limbaugh and Bo Snerdly (who isn't real, btw.)[right][snapback]884175[/snapback][/right][/quote] That's because the Republican party isn't really conservative anymore; even compared to when Reagan ran the show, it's weak sauce. And it's getting weaker. Authentic conservatives -- people like, say, Senator Rick Santorum -- are considered too "controversial" or "extreme" to get anywhere near the position of speaking for the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 We live (those of us in the USA) in a republic. A republic has an elected president that can veto the senate. A democracy does not. The US Constitution states it clearly. My theory on Bush using the word "democracy" instead of "republic" is because the media has tainted the meaning of the word for constantly referring to America as a democracy - which is an error. Maybe he doesn't want to confuse people. Bottom line... we live in a republic form of government. [quote] Article. IV. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to [b]every State in this Union [/b]a [b]Republican Form of Government[/b], 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. [url="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html"]http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-...transcript.html[/url][/quote] What James Madison had to say about it.... [quote]The Federalist No.10 (1787) James Madison [url="http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm"]http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm[/url] From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. [/quote] God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Nathan' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:30 PM']That's because the Republican party isn't really conservative anymore; even compared to when Reagan ran the show, it's weak sauce. And it's getting weaker. Authentic conservatives -- people like, say, Senator Rick Santorum -- are considered too "controversial" or "extreme" to get anywhere near the position of speaking for the GOP. [right][snapback]884191[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Very true. Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:38 PM']Bottom line... we live in a republic form of government. [right][snapback]884198[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not by definiton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:43 PM']Very true. Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist." [right][snapback]884204[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Do you mean liberal in a pejorative sense? I wonder what Clint Eastwood would think of you......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:47 PM']Not by definiton. [right][snapback]884206[/snapback][/right] [/quote] We live in a republic. Maybe you don't want it to be a republic, but it is. It's just getting funny now... Socrates was right. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 06:43 PM']Yet liberals tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them (including anybody remotely pro-life) as an "extremist."[right][snapback]884204[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Oh, absolutely. It's ridiculous and insane, but I hear it all the time. On my college campus, you'd win more popularity by declaring that you use newborn babies as firewood than by admitting a pro-life stance. I'm sure many view me as a "right-wing, neo-fascist, fundamentalist extremist" or whatever simply because I am pro-life. Edited February 12, 2006 by Nathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Ironmonk, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I would suspect not. The term republic is properly applied insofar as we don't have a monarch as our head of State. Gee whiz, Ironmonk. However, we live in a representative democracy. This is the case, precisely because we were founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. But we are not a republic in the sense that you are speaking. Benjamin Franklin knew this, as did most Americans of the day. This is based upon the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Most republics (in the sense defined above) and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas. In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws, and in particular to the idea championed by Stephen A. Douglas that the residents of each territory were allowed to determine whether it would accept or reject the practice of slavery, for example. This is why we are not a direct democracy nor are we a participatory democracy. We are a representative democracy, which is often called (incorrectly) a republic. Again, Ironmonk, we are a republic insofar as we have no monarch, but we are not a republic in the sense that you are proposing. Remember the war cry of the Revolution: "Taxation without Representation." Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected representatives speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights, however some democracies have extended this right further. In the United States and other democracies, typically the lower house of a bicameral (two-chamber) system is based on population - more or less - while the upper House is based on area. If you think differently, show us how. And please stop laughing about this, you are wrong. You are the one looking foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:18 PM']Ironmonk, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I would suspect not. The term republic is properly applied insofar as we don't have a monarch as our head of State. Gee whiz, Ironmonk. However, we live in a representative democracy. This is the case, precisely because we were founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. But we are not a republic in the sense that you are speaking. Benjamin Franklin knew this, as did most Americans of the day. This is based upon the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Most republics (in the sense defined above) and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas. In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws, and in particular to the idea championed by Stephen A. Douglas that the residents of each territory were allowed to determine whether it would accept or reject the practice of slavery, for example. This is why we are not a direct democracy nor are we a participatory democracy. We are a representative democracy, which is often called (incorrectly) a republic. Again, Ironmonk, we are a republic insofar as we have no monarch, but we are not a republic in the sense that you are proposing. Remember the war cry of the Revolution: "Taxation without Representation." Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected representatives speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights, however some democracies have extended this right further. In the United States and other democracies, typically the lower house of a bicameral (two-chamber) system is based on population - more or less - while the upper House is based on area. If you think differently, show us how. And please stop laughing about this, you are wrong. You are the one looking foolish. [right][snapback]884227[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ironmonk is right. The U.S. was conceived as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote]As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. --George Washington[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) [quote]Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. --Winston Churchill[/quote] I guess that's bipartisan politics for ya. : Edited February 12, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2006, 09:26 PM']Ironmonk is right. The U.S. was conceived as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. There is a difference. [right][snapback]884236[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Did I say pure democracy? I don't think so. I believe that I said that we were [b]NOT[/b] a direct democracy. Ironmonk is wrong and so are you, if this is the line you are going to support. Think that you can offer support for the USA being other than what I described? By all means...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 09:31 PM']Did I say pure democracy? I don't think so. I believe that I said that we were [b]NOT[/b] a direct democracy. Ironmonk is wrong and so are you, if this is the line you are going to support. Think that you can offer support for the USA being other than what I described? By all means...... [right][snapback]884242[/snapback][/right] [/quote] and a nah nah na boo boo to you too. Again... Socrates, your predictions come true. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 What form of government is a "Constitutional Republic?" I have never heard of that form of government. If by that you mean Repbulican democracy, I would agree. However, that is a restricted from of democracy and not a republic, in the sense that you are promoting. In political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, along with some form of written constitution, limitations against absolute power by a single individual or a combination of individuals, and other characteristic mechanisms of freedom, such as economic freedom, or a "commonwealth". This however, is a very broad term and not one that is by definition correct. It is a colloquial term applied to Republican democracy. If by the that term you mean the Presidential system, then you are supporting the idea of a democracy, for that is precisely what it is. A presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republican democracy where the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. Such systems generally have some combination of historical and/or cultural ties to the former Roman Republic and later Roman Empire and, more commonly, to the United States of America. The Constitution of the United States is credited by some people with being the oldest document constituting a government still in existence, and the Presidential system of government is widely accepted as having originated from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now