Signs that a collapse is under way.

[DiscoBiscuit]

sorry dag but the context that applies is no royalty. even your wiki literature is potification, says it at the top of the piece.

you're another democracy = democrat whatever, lol

See how much constitutional dictate the queen has enacted since free elections in Britain. I get the feeling you won't find very much.

 

[dagnabit]

sorry dag but the context that applies is no royalty. even your wiki literature is potification, says it at the top of the piece.

sorry DB but "pontification" would be something other than the dictionary(oed not so much wiki)
but nice try at creating your own context

you're another democracy = democrat whatever, lol

and creating your own argument bravo sir you almost hit the DB trifecta!!
now ifin you could just attempt to elicit emotion then invent personal slight...

See how much constitutional dictate the queen has enacted since free elections in Britain. I get the feeling you won't find very much.

are you now saying the UK is not a constitutional monarchy?
LMAO!!!!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

sorry DB but "pontification" would be something other than the dictionary(oed not so much wiki)

and creating your own argument bravo sir you almost hit the DB trifecta!!
now ifin you could just attempt to elicit emotion then invent personal slight...

what a bunch o crap

are you now saying the UK is not a constitutional monarchy?
LMAO!!!!

Break out some "queeny" law, libertarian man.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Well. I'm drunk and stoned. Big office bash tonight.

I'll avoid the semantics of what i think is global failed governance and focus rather on Master Ben's work of art. When in history has such power resided in one institution and one man? A banking immortal driving the Titanic.

General Collateral At -0.002%: Lowest EVER, As Scramble Out Of Money Markets Hits Afterburner, Primes

A few days ago we pointed out that special repo rates are now negative. Fine. How big is special collateral after all - in the grand scheme of things it is a tiny market. Well, as of today, General Collateral just hit -0.002, the lowest rate in the history of the series, and in our humble opinion this is a far more troubling indication of broad liquidity developments than the 1 month bill touching on -0.001%. Simply said, this confirms our speculation that there is now a massive rolling of funding out from money markets and into any market that will accept the maturing short term funding without it being rolled due to European contagion concerns. We said: "this latest move has unpleasant implications for money market managers, who unable to find yield in repo (0.01%?) will now be forced to look for higher yielding assets, and thus expose them to even more contagion risk once the house of cards falls, facilitating the "breakage of the buck" once again just like what happened in the aftermath of the Lehman catastrophe, and snarling all global fund flows, forcing the Fed to become liquidity provider of last resort." As of today, this prediction is well en route to being confirmed.

i don't think you can say the history isn't somewhat fascinating? It's interesting how history is always cyclical.

The American Revolution Crisis ended in 1794 (1783 Treaty). The Civil War Crisis arrived 66 years later in 1860. That abbreviated vicious Crisis ended in 1865. The Depression/World War II Crisis arrived 64 years later in 1929. Our current Crisis arrived in the 2008/2009 time frame, exactly 64 years after the end of the last Crisis (1945).

And around the wheel she goes.

Could certainly be coincidence. We after all more advanced than they were because of the iPad.

 

[sandawg]

gramps is drunk and stoned! His mind is fertile. Gramps, check this out. Just read it over and over again until it finally makes sense:

WHEN I VOTE REPUBLICAN, I AM VOTING AGAINST MY OWN BEST INTERESTS.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Okay, I'll skip the uh.. professional, economic semantics and suggest there's far more economic ills than printing additional funds. Ben's blowing up the balloon but the top 1/10th of 1% has the pin to bust it, has already busted it three times last decade and multiple times throughout history. Globalization has unfolded new and unknown risks to go along with the known risks. Risk we substantially inflated with deregulation.

That's the forward in a nutshell. The solutions are far more involved than curtailing the flow of synthesized fed capital.

 

[HempKat]

That's exactly what I have been saying all along and now you act like YOU came up with it?

No what you said was that the Social Security Trust fun is full of money, it is not. It is full of paper worth even less then the paper we call money.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I bet the IOUs are worth even less.

 

[HempKat]

I bet the IOUs are worth even less.

No because it's the IOU's of which I speak aka “special issue,” non-marketable, U.S. government bonds.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I didn't conveniently forget about congress.

Lets run a thought experiment: Consider you get the majority to vote out the 1st amendment. Lets see if your democracy wins or if the republic wins.

In this case, your thought experiment doesn't exist. We don't 'out' bills of right. We ratify them by, you guessed it, the majority. But 1st you'd have to understand what constitutes a majority. In your example, a majority (your word) opinion would mean a win for the democratic republic. Majority rule - no king.

If we have a democracy, 1st amendment will go away. We all know that the 1st amendment wont go away. Unless the republic fails. Which it arguably is. But still doesn't change what we were intended to be, have been, are, and hope to continue to be: a republic.

We may have democratic like elections for some of our leaders, but our form of government is a republic...

...which means no royalty as ruling class.

Your idea of democracy doesn't exist. The democracies that exist (you don't recognize.) Democracies where all people vote for all laws is in somebody's head, they told you and it got in yours.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

America: Republic or Democracy?
by William P. Meyers

Lately, from politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy?

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy.

People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic.

What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic.

Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.

The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield's ruling against it in the Sommersett case of 1772. And land speculators like George Washington sought to seize more Native American Indian land, which the British had outlawed.

But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote.

After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized.

The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy.

Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic.

At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

There will always be anti-democratic forces in any society. The most blatantly undemocratic feature of U.S. government in the 20th century was the unconstitutional but systematic disenfranchisement of African-American and other non-white citizens. This came to an end in the 1950's and 1960's with a series of Supreme Court decisions against segregation laws, the passage of Civil Rights Acts, and the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawing poll taxes. We even lowered the voting age to 18 with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971.

There are no longer any voter-qualification impediments to democracy in the United States. But many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote.

The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.

 

[redbudduckfoot]

great read.

 

[Plant Early]

Total net derivative exposure rated below BBB on JP Morgan’s $90,000,000,000,000 ($90 trillion) books currently stands at 35.4% – MUCH WORSE than Bear Stearns and Lehman‘s derivative portfolio just prior to their CRASH. JPM’s IMPLOSION will be 1000 X’s bigger than Enron!

 

[blackone]

are you now saying the UK is not a constitutional monarchy?
LMAO!!!!

I'm not sure how you can be a constitutional monarchy without a constitution?

 

[dagnabit]

I'm not sure how you can be a constitutional monarchy without a constitution?

you're as bad as DB..

LMGTFY

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Constitution+of+the+United+Kingdom

....

here is an article to support my position.
it's a little less slanted than the one offered previously and actually sites sources and quotes the FF as opposed to the op ed fluff offered to support the erroneous position that we are a democracy or that the only meaning of republic is w/o king..

i guess some folks think republic=republican?

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"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."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

 

[HempKat]

The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.

The problem is that the cure to the defect will not be in the best interests of the puppeticians and the people that pull their strings. One big step towards that cure would be the removal of the electoral college. There was a time when this was practical, back when there were no phones and transportation were your feet or a horse and buggy. Due to such things it was more practical to put the final decision of who is elected as President in the hands of the representatives for the sake of expediency. In this day and age were virtually everyone is connected to the internet and one can travel across the nation in hours rather then days or weeks there is no need for the electoral college anymore.

The only reason it still exists is to thwart the will of the people as we saw demonstrated in 2000.

 

[SpasticGramps]

WHEN I VOTE REPUBLICAN, I AM VOTING AGAINST MY OWN BEST INTERESTS.

Why do you think I'm a Republican lol? Have read anything I've written? I don't know that you have the capacity to understand my position. At least that's what you are showing me. Lacking reading comprehension at a minimum. Totally lost in the woods much more likely.

 

[HempKat]

you're as bad as DB..

LMGTFY

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Constitution+of+the+United+Kingdom

....

here is an article to support my position.
it's a little less slanted than the one offered previously and actually sites sources and quotes the FF as opposed to the op ed fluff offered to support the erroneous position that we are a democracy or that the only meaning of republic is w/o king..

i guess some folks think republic=republican?

The problem with your view is you keep trying to paint the majority as a unified group when it isn't necessarily. Lets take the Gay rights issue for an example. Clearly homosexuals are a minority in this country but when it's put to the people both homosexuals and heterosexuals vote in favor of Gay rights because there are many heterosexuals that feel it's the right thing to do. You suggest that our Country was made a republic to protect the rights of such minorities. When in fact it has been the republic side (not reflecting the will of the citizens) of our government that has prevented Gay rights from moving forward. It's only now in our modern age where it's easier for individuals to make their voice heard, that we begin to see movement forward on Gay rights as representatives begin to fear for their jobs at the thought of going against the will of their constituents.

See the thing is yes there are minorities in this country when you look at skin color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. but in terms of democracy this is not the minorities in elections just as majority is not a reflection of race, creed, or sexual orientation. In terms of democracy majority is the larger group voting a particular way in an election and the minority is everyone else voting the other way. In this way the majority is often comprised of a blend of most or all of the minorities based on race creed and sexual orientation. So when you talk of minorities in the way you do in discussing democracy you're really comparing apples to oranges

 

[HempKat]

Why do you think I'm a Republican lol? Have read anything I've written? I don't know that you have the capacity to understand my position. At least that's what you are showing me. Lacking reading comprehension at a minimum. Totally lost in the woods much more likely.

He probably heard you express some republican like views and therefore makes the assumption you're republican. See that's the very thing the powers that be want us doing. Jumping to wrong conclusions and treating each other as the enemy. This plays right into their efforts to distract us while lady liberty gets raped in the back room.

 

[dagnabit]

The problem with your view is you keep trying to paint the majority as a unified group when it isn't necessarily. Lets take the Gay rights issue for an example. Clearly homosexuals are a minority in this country but when it's put to the people both homosexuals and heterosexuals vote in favor of Gay rights because there are many heterosexuals that feel it's the right thing to do. You suggest that our Country was made a republic to protect the rights of such minorities. When in fact it has been the republic side (not reflecting the will of the citizens) of our government that has prevented Gay rights from moving forward. It's only now in our modern age where it's easier for individuals to make their voice heard, that we begin to see movement forward on Gay rights as representatives begin to fear for their jobs at the thought of going against the will of their constituents.

See the thing is yes there are minorities in this country when you look at skin color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. but in terms of democracy this is not the minorities in elections just as majority is not a reflection of race, creed, or sexual orientation. In terms of democracy majority is the larger group voting a particular way in an election and the minority is everyone else voting the other way. In this way the majority is often comprised of a blend of most or all of the minorities based on race creed and sexual orientation. So when you talk of minorities in the way you do in discussing democracy you're really comparing apples to oranges

huh?
im just pointing out we do not live in a democracy...
luckily so or it would be majority rule against the minorities.

we would NEVER see glbtg rights!!
but it's not left solely up to a majority of voters.