03-19-2004, 07:51 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
What is a Democratic Republic?
Taking the total neutral outside look and looking in at our country and how it is run, I have a few questions and an observation or two.
What is a Democratic Republic (which is what we are)? I don't mean literally but I mean what does it mean to you personally, politics aside? Does it mean blindly following your leader? Does it mean you have the right to question your leader? How much power should the government have and what should it and what should it not be allowed to do? How do we go about getting the country to where the majority can help the minority without prejudice and without infringing on rights? Who should have more power over "moral laws" the nation, the state or the community? Finally, why do you hate or dislike the other side (left or right) so much if both sidesa truly are working for the betterment of the country? To me a D.R. is a way to make sure that the minority is heard and that all citizens have equal rights and that those rights are protected without prejudice and are protected. To me it means the leaders should be mature enough to admit mistakes and yet, humble enough to not take sole credit for the greatness they achieve. To me it means that if we go to war or if we support a country that drains billions of our tax dollars we the people know are told why without hesitation the truth and the people are able to decide whether it's a just purpose or not. Yes, with a DR it is ourduty to question ANY official when policy is not in our best interest. We should never blindly follow any man simply because we dislike the other side. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to believe that "the one we elect is the lesser of 2 evils or from the party". We have been conditioned that it is a popularity contest. We have been conditioned wrongly, it should be "we elect whom we believe will be the best man possible to lead us in positive directions and keep the country united, while protecting the rights we enjoy." It is not a popularity contest or a "party line" contest, "it is who represents our interests and rights best" contest. The power of the Federal government should be limited to equal rights and protection, foreign relations and making sure that tax money is distributed equally so that poorer states have the same oppurtunities as richer states. The Federal needs to make sure the air, food and water maintain a healthy level because it affects the nation as a whole, but they do not need to dictate moral laws. Moral laws such as abortion, gay marriage, drinking age, local radio and tv. etc. as well as gun laws, should be the decision of the state and the community NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED. What works in Massachussets may not be suitable for Alabama. Having abortion legal in NYC makes sense, having it legal in Macon, Ga may not. That way, you don't like having gay marriage you move to another state or community. Communities and states should have the right to be more representative of the people who reside there, the federal government should respect the wishes of the state and the people. Morality cannot be blindly dictated when certain regions have different values. Finally, no side is better than the other. And no side is worse. Both left and right have very good ideas and some very bad ideas. To me the problem is the right focuses on taking away social programs and reverting back to a "Social Darwinism" type society, where they figure the poor will perish or figure out how to get richer. But in my opinion, the left is more willing to try to even things up by making sure EVERYONE recieves the best education possible and that small businesses be given a helping hand to succeed. And the right seems to want to push moral issues over everyone thereby creating a more powerful central government and not recognizing states and communities rights. The left, to me, represents more power to the states and communities to decide what is best for them. So there you have it. If you read this whole dissertation I congratulate you, as it is far longer than I planned. I am eager to read others views.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
03-24-2004, 12:11 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Just wondering why noone has answered. Not going to attack just curious as to others beliefs.
I see this has been hit and looked at..........
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
03-24-2004, 12:52 AM | #3 (permalink) | |||||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's look at what this really means. Our government spends billions of dollars every year trying to get people to stop smokng marijuana. These people are choosing to smoke marijuana. If marijuana is harmful, these people are accepting those consequences, and smoke it anyway. On the other hand, every year millions of children live in impoverished squalor. They didn't choose this, and if the government spent billions on THAT instead of punishing people for doing what they want to do, they wouldn't HAVE to live that way. This is a small example, there are hundreds more. So not only is our government restricting our liberty for no good reason (you can't do drugs), but they are also spending so much on crap like that that they are compromising our welfare. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Were both sides working for the good of the country, but simply had different views, I could respect both sides. As it is, both sides have justifiably gained poor reputations. The democrats are so busy fucking around with trying to make everyone equal and everyone equally happy that they fail utterly to gain support. The republicans have by comparison gained a reputation for saying whatever it takes to get what they want, even if it means lying, and even if it means telling a different lie every time you address an issue. There's a reason Nixon was Tricky Dick, Reagan was the Teflon President, and W is the War Criminal. (note, I didn' tmake any of those nicknames up) |
|||||
03-25-2004, 06:33 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Very cool link and article. Thank you for sharing. May not agree with everything it says but it makes sense and a good argument.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
03-25-2004, 06:42 AM | #6 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
I think we need a new "term" to decribe what our form of government is becoming.
Maybe "corporate socialist republic"
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
03-25-2004, 11:20 AM | #7 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W
|
Quote:
representative democracy: voters democratically elect individuals to represent their geographical regions in various levels of local, state and national government. democratic republic: the nation is a republic, a collection of separate and equal democratic states which have voluntarily joined under the governorship of a body of elected individuals, and operate as a federation. "republic" is defined in the american heritage dictionary as follows: NOUN: 1a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order. 3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. 4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking. |
|
03-25-2004, 12:09 PM | #8 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W
|
now that the definition is out of the way, my opinion is that our democracy and republic are in danger. when the prissy pearl and sweater set (the national coalition of concerned women) go on talk shows and start in about homosexual decadence as the corruption that led to the downfall of the rome, they clearly have no knowledge of the voting bribes and gang intimidation that were part of the later consular elections. that's what led to the demise of the roman republic and the rise of the roman empire, and that's where we're really headed. we may not have an empire, but our executive branch is conducting itself in an imperial fashion.
the democratic process has been privatized to the extent that we cannot be sure that our votes are even being counted. sadly, we are so complacent as a population and so disengaged from the process that we continue to allow this to go unchecked and most people don't even bother to cast a ballot. if you are republican or democrat, it does not matter, everyone should still be outraged at the 2000 presidential election. it was a travesty of democracy. everyone should vote, and every vote should count or else we don't have a democracy at all. gore vidal eloquently pointed this out in the last episode of bill mahr's real time. the transcript is not up yet, but when it becomes available, this is the link: http://www.safesearching.com/billmah...nscripts.shtml
__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking. |
03-25-2004, 12:24 PM | #9 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
Look at Tamanny Hall and Chicago politics and you'll see voter fraud galore. That being said, there should definitely be an audit trail for any electronic voting system.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
Tags |
democratic, republic |
|
|