Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a representative democracy, so is the UK. The UK is also a constitutional monarchy, so is Sweden.

Shamrift wrote:And all we get is tripe like this thread?

Or a small version therein.

I love the movie Barry Lyndon, and I feel compelled by this thread to watch it a few more times.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a representative democracy, so is the UK. The UK is also a constitutional monarchy, so is Sweden.

What is this, government class? J/k, good to hear the gavel hit the table.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's both, he's just nitpicking. A car is a vehicle, but it is also a car. America is a republic, but it is also a democracy. He's not "more right". We're both right...

Waah! Waah! I'm right too!

Oh wait. Except there's that whole "Constitution" thing. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

ShumaGorath wrote:Case in point. It's why I don't like arguing with children.

Ah... we are to the name calling stage. Proof that Shuma has run out of idea.

Oh wait. Except there's that whole "Constitution" thing. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

So are you on the record as saying that the United States is not a democracy? That we don't elect our leaders democratically?

ShumaGorath wrote:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Unlike you Shuma I didn't sleep through school. No need for Google.

Case in point. It's why I don't like arguing with children.

I wonder if douche gets filtered by Dakka.

Nope.

Democracy means the people themselves vote. We have representatives to do that voting.

Ozymandias wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Unlike you Shuma I didn't sleep through school. No need for Google.

Case in point. It's why I don't like arguing with children.

I wonder if douche gets filtered by Dakka.

Nope.

Is that pointed at me, him, or both?

Frazzled wrote:Democracy means the people themselves vote. We have representatives to do that voting.

For presidential leadership, but not for the "republican" style of peoples governance.

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".

Republic is a pretty unspecific term, much more so than democracy. But American governmental style falls under both categories quite comfortably. Democracies themselves are almost by definition republics. Which is why this entire argument is so mind blowingly stupid.

Frazzled wrote:Democracy means the people themselves vote. We have representatives to do that voting.

Sort of... all a matter of context I suppose, but this particular argument is pedantic to say the least.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=democracy

# S: (n) democracy (the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives)
# S: (n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)
# S: (n) majority rule, democracy (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)

I don't know what you're talking about Shummy? I was just doing an experiment.

Ozymandias wrote:I don't know what you're talking about Shummy? I was just doing an experiment.

Ahh, very well than. Quite understandable. I'm sorry or the suspicion.

\

Teabagging genius speaker... this guy could talk the head off of a frakking fly ... I was taken aback by his lack of, something. Totally ignored most of the problems, and went on to talk about a company with the fancy cape and the FRAKKING NONSENSE...

It's a corporately owned theocracy. Prove me wrong. I double dare you.

It's PEOPLE! The American system of government is PEOPLE!

warpcrafter wrote:It's a corporately owned theocracy. Prove me wrong. I double dare you.

As much as I hate to admit it, im inclined to agree.

I can count the years I've been old enough to vote (and give a gak about politics) on one hand, and in that time I've been swinging back and forth between conservative and liberal, but its only just in the last year that I took a step back and realized our seperation of powers is a lot less... seperated... than I was taught in school. I never took the time to think about how much people (here in this conservative part of CA) allow, and in some cases, expect, their church to TELL them how to vote.

ShumaGorath wrote:So are you on the record as saying that the United States is not a democracy? That we don't elect our leaders democratically?

1. The Constitution of the United States itself claims our government to be a Republic.
2. We elect our Representatives through popular vote.

The President doesn't count because he is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. The elected Representatives make Laws. Those Laws govern our society. The Representatives may NOT pass laws that violate The Constitution, even if the majority of the people want them to. Thus, we are a government of laws over a government of popular opinion.

American politics send me into a frothing rage. I can understand having uncontrolled outbursts during political proceedings (though, personally, instead of shouting at one person, I would shout at everyone.)

warpcrafter wrote:It's a corporately owned theocracy. Prove me wrong. I double dare you.

Scratch my last post. Warpcrafter is right. I'd go as far as to say "It's corporately owned" and stop there.

Frazzled wrote:We are at the edge of an abyss

It gazes into you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:
Oh wait. Except there's that whole "Constitution" thing. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

There's more than one form of republic. Shuma is actually correct. So are you, but in a less precise fashion.

dogma wrote:There's more than one form of republic. Shuma is actually correct. So are you, but in a less precise fashion.

Proof. Pics or it didn't happen. I got my quote straight from the founding documents of the nation. Don't give me some cut rate online dictionary either.

The Green Git wrote:

dogma wrote:There's more than one form of republic. Shuma is actually correct. So are you, but in a less precise fashion.

Proof. Pics or it didn't happen. I got my quote straight from the founding documents of the nation. Don't give me some cut rate online dictionary either.

Is that the same founding document praising "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" in a country that not only embraced slavery, but had half of the country dependent upon it?

Because nothing in there could possibly be flowery language to impress people.

Platuan4th wrote:
Is that the same founding document praising "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" in a country that not only embraced slavery, but had half of the country dependent upon it?

Because nothing in there could possibly be flowery language to impress people.

Quiet... I wanna see how hard he falls once this really kicks off...

You know that back in the day, I used to call gum chewy, but nowadays they just call it gum.... DAMN WHIPPERSNAPPERS!!!



You... will never see this one coming... OH SNAP, A TAZER!!! , that is pretty funny though .

Get over it folks.
There is no reason for professional negotiators to resort to violence and name calling.

The fact that lawmakers do engage in brawls and shouting matches shouldn't be accepted as 'business as usual'. Rather it should be noticed as the shameful and childish act it is.

Like this President or not, there is such a thing as respect for the office.

Oldgrue wrote:Like this President or not, there is such a thing as respect for the office.

Funny, the past 8 years tell a different story.

this whole situation is interesting to me, because in the canadian parliamentary system (according to my 9-year old knowledge from 5th grade) you cannot accuse someone outright of lying in parliament, or risk disciplinary actions (both from the speaker of the house, and party censorship) Other than that, People, I realize 1000 pages is a lot to read, but before you go around speaking about -deathpanels, -illegal immigrant rights, -whatever else, at least read the relevant parts of the bill. My 0.02$.

The Green Git wrote:
Proof. Pics or it didn't happen. I got my quote straight from the founding documents of the nation. Don't give me some cut rate online dictionary either.

Um, what? A republic is simply a government in which the sovereign is not a monarch, and the people (at least some of them) have some say in the process of governance. The Founders, by the way the Constitution is written, used the word republic as a euphemism for representative democracy (though they didn't necessarily comment on how representative that democracy might be). You want a definition? here.

The fact that the Constitution calls our government a 'republic' is no more relevant than the fact that USSR stands for United Soviet Socialist Republic. Hence, we were still a republic when the only people allowed to vote were white, male land-owners.

Platuan4th wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:Like this President or not, there is such a thing as respect for the office.

Funny, the past 8 years tell a different story.

And the disrespect still wasn't appropriate.

Oldgrue wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:Like this President or not, there is such a thing as respect for the office.

Funny, the past 8 years tell a different story.

And the disrespect still wasn't appropriate.

We are still talking about an elected representative calling out in utter and sheer terror during a Presidential address to a large elected group.

You and I can scream and holler hell to high water if it so pleases, with a very limited restriction on this, with absolutely no problem.

Falconlance wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It's a corporately owned theocracy. Prove me wrong. I double dare you.

As much as I hate to admit it, im inclined to agree.

I can count the years I've been old enough to vote (and give a gak about politics) on one hand, and in that time I've been swinging back and forth between conservative and liberal, but its only just in the last year that I took a step back and realized our seperation of powers is a lot less... seperated... than I was taught in school. I never took the time to think about how much people (here in this conservative part of CA) allow, and in some cases, expect, their church to TELL them how to vote.

And what does that have to do with a "coorporately owned theocracy"?

By the way just a little FYI here. Maybe the congregation actually has the same point of view as their Church Clergy? Do you expect them to attend a Church that has different beliefs as themselves?

I'm surprised this passed Dogma's all seeing eye.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
And what does that have to do with a "coorporately owned theocracy"?

By the way just a little FYI here. Maybe the congregation actually has the same point of view as their Church Clergy? Do you expect them to attend a Church that has different beliefs as themselves?

I'm surprised this passed Dogma's all seeing eye.


GG

Yeah, I'm disappointed in myself.

That said, I can see the corporately owned point. Though I'd say that 'ownership' is probably too strong a concept.

But theocracy? That's nonsense. A group of people casting their votes in accordance with their religious beliefs is not a theocracy.